Tamera Erskine, as personal representative of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky v. J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., and Gregory H. Hawley ( 2023 )

Rel: January 6, 2023
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
_________________________
1200401
_________________________
Tamera Erskine, as personal representative
of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky, deceased
v.
J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., and Gregory H. Hawley
_________________________
1210153
_________________________
John P. McKleroy, Jr., and Patty Townsend
v.
1200401 and 1210153
Landon E. Ash and Tamera Erskine, as personal
representative of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky, deceased
Appeals from Jefferson Probate Court
(19BHM02213)
PER CURIAM.
Tamera Erskine, as the personal representative of the estate of
Joann Bashinsky ("Ms. Bashinsky"), deceased, appeals from: (1) an order
of the Jefferson Probate Court awarding fees to the temporary guardian
and conservator for Ms. Bashinsky previously appointed by the probate
court and (2) an order awarding fees to a guardian ad litem appointed to
represent Ms. Bashinsky in a proceeding seeking the appointment of a
permanent guardian and conservator commenced by John P. McKleroy,
Jr., and Patty Townsend. McKleroy and Townsend separately appeal
from the probate court's order of dismissal with prejudice of all remaining
pending matters following Ms. Bashinsky's death.1
1This Court granted the uncontested motion to incorporate the
record filed in appeal no. 1210153 with the record filed in appeal no.
1200401. In a January 14, 2022, order, this Court consolidated the two
appeals.
2
1200401 and 1210153
I. Facts
This is the second time this case has come before us. In Ex parte
Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d 1240 (Ala. 2020), we dealt with Erskine's
challenges to the probate court's handling of McKleroy and Townsend's
"Emergency Petition for a Temporary Guardian and Conservator" ("the
emergency petition") concerning Ms. Bashinsky. In the present appeals,
we deal with the aftermath of our decision in Ex parte Bashinsky.
Because our analysis in Ex parte Bashinsky is integral to our disposition
of appeal number 1200401, we must reiterate some of the facts recounted
in that opinion. We then describe in detail the procedural history in this
case that unfolded after we issued our decision in Ex parte Bashinsky.
This case was commenced on October 1, 2019, when McKleroy and
Townsend simultaneously filed the emergency petition and a petition
seeking the appointment of a permanent guardian and conservator for
Ms. Bashinsky. Ms. Bashinsky was the widow of Sloan Y. Bashinsky,
who owned the majority stock in Golden Enterprises, Inc., and who was
the founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of Golden Flake Foods
("Golden Flake"). McKleroy and Townsend, two former Golden Flake
employees who had professional relationships with Ms. Bashinsky,
3
1200401 and 1210153
alleged that Ms. Bashinsky was incapable of caring for herself and for
her assets, which were then valued at approximately $218 million.
McKleroy and Townsend's allegations of Ms. Bashinsky's incompetence
centered on her request that Level Four Advisory Services LLC, which
held approximately $35 million of Ms. Bashinsky's personal assets,
transfer $17.5 million to David Heath at the investment firm Morgan
Stanley. McKleroy and Townsend further alleged that the transferred
assets would end up being controlled by Ms. Bashinsky's grandson,
Landon E. Ash, whom they alleged had already accumulated $23.5
million in total indebtedness to Ms. Bashinsky and whom they alleged
exerted undue influence upon Ms. Bashinsky.
On October 17, 2019, Probate Judge Alan King held a hearing on
the emergency petition, at which he granted a motion of McKleroy and
Townsend to disqualify Ms. Bashinsky's chosen attorneys without giving
Ms. Bashinsky an opportunity to waive any alleged conflict. He further
refused to grant a requested continuance so that Ms. Bashinsky could
retain substitute counsel. The hearing then proceeded on the matter of
the appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator. Judge King
refused to allow Ms. Bashinsky to cross-examine witnesses during the
4
1200401 and 1210153
hearing or to allow her to testify on her own behalf.2 After concluding the
hearing, Judge King, on the same day, entered a written order in which
he purported to appoint Gregory H. Hawley, the general conservator for
Jefferson County, as the temporary guardian and conservator for
Ms. Bashinsky.3
Ms. Bashinsky petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the probate court to vacate its orders disqualifying her
attorneys from representing her in the underlying proceedings and
appointing a temporary guardian and conservator over her person and
property. She also sought dismissal of the emergency petition and the
petition for a permanent guardian and conservator. On July 2, 2020, this
Court issued an opinion addressing Ms. Bashinsky's mandamus petition.
2Robert S. Gwin, whom Judge King had appointed as
Ms. Bashinsky's guardian ad litem for the proceedings on the emergency
petition, had informed Judge King following the disqualification of her
attorneys that he was not able to, and he would not, act as
Ms. Bashinsky's counsel during the proceedings. See Ex parte
Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d at 1250.
3McKleroy and Townsend's emergency petition had recommended
that Hawley be appointed temporary guardian and conservator. Hawley
testified during a subsequent hearing in this case that he was originally
appointed as general conservator for Jefferson County by Judge King in
2013.
5
1200401 and 1210153
In Ex parte Bashinsky, we explained that the authority to establish a
temporary guardianship/conservatorship is premised on the existence of
an actual emergency that does not permit time to make an immediate
competency determination; if no such emergency exists, we explained,
then the statutory process for establishing a permanent
guardianship/conservatorship applies. We concluded that, in this case, no
such emergency existed -- or was even alleged by McKleroy and
Townsend -- because there was no immediate threat to Ms. Bashinsky’s
health, safety, and welfare or of the dissipation of her assets. Because
there was no emergency, we held that the requirements for establishing
a permanent guardianship/conservatorship applied. We noted that the
probate court had violated the basic requirements of a hearing regarding
whether to establish a permanent guardianship/conservatorship by:
(1) failing to provide Ms. Bashinsky notice of the competency hearing;
(2) not allowing Ms. Bashinsky to be represented by counsel; and
(3) preventing Ms. Bashinsky from presenting testimony and evidence on
her behalf and to cross-examine witnesses. Specifically, we stated:
"Because we have determined that no 'emergency' was
presented in that hearing, the representation and case-
presentation rights afforded to a respondent in §§ 26-2A-102
and 26-2A-135[, Ala. Code 1975,] were applicable. Those
6
1200401 and 1210153
provisions, and Ms. Bashinsky's basic due-process rights,
were egregiously violated, as the probate court treated the
proceeding like an ex parte hearing even though
Ms. Bashinsky was present.
"….
"… 'A judgment is void ... if the court rendering it ...
acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.' Insurance
Mgmt. & Admin., Inc. v. Palomar Ins. Corp., 590 So. 2d 209,
212 (Ala. 1991). Accordingly, we conclude that the probate
court's October 17, 2019, order appointing a temporary
guardian and conservator must be set aside. Given that the
hearing appointing a temporary guardian and conservator
was a nullity, it follows that the determination to disqualify
Ms. Bashinsky's attorneys that occurred during that hearing,
and which precipitated the aforementioned due-process
violations, must also be set aside."
Ex parte Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d at 1262-63 (second emphasis added). At
the conclusion of our opinion, we explained:
"[T]he October 17, 2019, order appointing a temporary
guardian and conservator for Ms. Bashinsky is void, as is the
order disqualifying Ms. Bashinsky's counsel. We therefore
grant the petition for the writ of mandamus as to those orders
and direct the probate court to vacate its October 17, 2019,
orders, to require the temporary guardian and conservator to
account for all of Ms. Bashinsky's funds and property, and to
dismiss the emergency petition." 4
4The Court also determined that McKleroy and Townsend's petition
seeking the appointment of a permanent guardian and conservator over
Ms. Bashinsky's person and property was not properly before the Court
because the probate court had not issued any orders at that time
pertaining to that petition, and we therefore denied Erskine's petition for
a writ of mandamus insofar as it sought relief relating to that petition.
7
1200401 and 1210153
Id. at 1263 (emphasis added).
On July 16, 2020, Chief Justice Parker appointed Walker County
Probate Judge A. Lee Tucker as a special Jefferson Probate Judge to
preside over the matters.5 On August 28, 2020, pursuant to Ex parte
Bashinsky, Judge Tucker entered an order vacating Judge King's
October 17, 2019, order that had appointed Hawley temporary guardian
and conservator and dismissing the emergency petition. The August 28,
2020, order also required Hawley to "file with the probate court an
accounting for Mrs. Joann Bashinsky's funds and property within Forty-
Five (45) days from the date of this order." Finally, the order provided
that the petition for a permanent guardian and conservator would be set
for a hearing after the petition was served upon Ms. Bashinsky and Ash.
On August 6, 2020, Hawley filed what he styled a "Petition for Final
Settlement of Conservatorship." On September 3, 2020, Ms. Bashinsky
filed a "Response and Objection to Petition for Final Settlement of
Conservatorship" in which she complained that Hawley had not
"include[d] all supporting documents necessary for determination
5Judge King retired from the bench on May 31, 2020.
8
1200401 and 1210153
whether the payments were properly made on behalf of Ms. Bashinsky."
She also more generally objected "to the credit or payment of any fees or
expenses to Hawley as the Alabama Supreme Court held the October 17,
2019, order appointing [Hawley]" void and to "the payment of attorney
fees and expenses to [various law firms] for their service as counsel to
Hawley during the pendency of his appointment as Temporary Guardian
and Conservator pursuant to the Probate Court's October 17, 2019, order
which the Alabama Supreme Court ruled void and a nullity." On
September 30, 2020, Hawley filed a "Reply to Response and Objections to
Petition for Final Settlement of Conservatorship" in which he stated that
he was "ready to produce any documentation corroborating receipts and
disbursements set forth in the Final Settlement Petition." Hawley
further contended that he
"and his attorneys are fully entitled to be paid for the legal
and fiduciary work performed in this case resulting from the
orders of the Probate Court …. Mr. Hawley was clearly duty
bound to fulfill his fiduciary duties as temporary Guardian
and Conservator as ordered by [the probate] court until such
time his appointment was terminated or vacated, which again
did not occur until [the probate] court's ruling on August 28,
2020. Mr. Hawley is now further duty bound to fulfill his
court-ordered work to prepare, file and arrange for the
property adjudication of a Petition for Final Settlement as
directed by [the probate] court."
9
1200401 and 1210153
On October 6, 2020, Judge Tucker entered an order stating that "[t]he
Petition for Final Settlement of Conservatorship of the Estate of Joann
F. Bashinsky, filed by Gregory H. Hawley, Conservator is hereby set for
hearing December 8, 2020, at 9:00 A.M. in the Probate Court of Jefferson
County."
On September 28, 2020, Ms. Bashinsky filed a motion to strike
portions of McKleroy and Townsend's petition for a permanent guardian
and conservator. On October 16, 2020, Judge Tucker appointed
J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., as guardian ad litem for Ms. Bashinsky "to protect
her interests and report to the court, regarding the application of John
McKleroy, as Petitioner, for the appointment of a Guardian and
Conservator."6 Given this Court's July 2, 2020, ruling in Ex parte
Bashinsky, Guin's appointment clearly was made for the purpose of
representing Ms. Bashinsky's interests in the proceedings on the pending
petition for a permanent guardian and conservator.
6Guin was the third guardian ad litem to be appointed in this case.
The previous two guardians ad litem had moved to withdraw from their
roles, and the probate court had granted those motions on December 3,
2019, and October 6, 2020, respectively.
10
1200401 and 1210153
On October 5, 2020, Judge Tucker held a hearing regarding
discovery, scheduling, and pending motions. Judge Tucker discussed
certain social-media postings regarding the case. In light of that
discussion, on October 22, 2020, Judge Tucker entered an order with
respect to "trial publicity" that, in pertinent part, provided:
"A. Each attorney in this matter shall strictly adhere to the
requirements and limitations on extra-judicial statements set
forth in Rule 3.6, Ala. R. Prof. C.
"B. So long as this matter is pending before this Court, no
party and no counsel of record for a party shall make any false
statement or publish any post containing any false statement,
about any other party or this matter on social media or in
statements to traditional or electronic media; and
"C. The attorneys for each party to this matter shall certify in
writing to this Court within five (5) days of this Order that
they have provided a copy of this Order to their respective
clients."
On December 8, 2020, Judge Tucker held a hearing on what he
described as "the petition in regard to the final settlement of the
conservator." In that hearing, Ms. Bashinsky's counsel argued:
"This judgment was vacated. It was voided by the Alabama
Supreme Court. And it's as if it didn't take place. So there --
there's a nullity. No appointments, no legal fees, no court costs
should have been paid. I'm not against lawyers getting paid;
not against Mr. Hawley getting paid if he's justified. But it
ought to come out of the petitioners, who started this and who
created the void situation; not the estate. The Court went on
11
1200401 and 1210153
to say that a void judgment has absolutely no legal force or
effect."
On December 11, 2020, the probate court entered what it styled a
"Decree on Final Settlement" concerning Hawley's service as temporary
guardian and conservator. That order provided:
"This cause coming before the Court to be heard on
December 8, 2020, for examination and auditing of the
account heretofore filed by Gregory H. Hawley, Esq., as
Conservator of the Estate of Joann F. Bashinsky, a Protected
Person, as final settlement of his conservatorship, being
present in Court Attorneys for Petitioner, Attorneys for
Respondent, Attorneys for Landon Ash, Court-appointed
Guardian ad Litem, Ken Guin, conservator Gregory H.
Hawley, Esq., and his attorneys. Gregory H. Hawley as
conservator moving the court to proceed with said final
settlement.
"It appearing to the Court from pleadings and proof that
due notice of the time and nature of said settlement has been
given in strict accordance with the law, and Melissa McCay,
as Attorney in Fact for Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as
surety, having accepted service and waived notice of said
settlement hearing. The Honorable Gregory H. Hawley Esq.,
who was heretofore appointed to act as Guardian and
Conservator of JoAnn F. Bashinsky an alleged incapacitated
person, upon application of Mr. Hawley, for Conservators
Final Settlement and the Respondent objecting to the Final
Settlement and denying the correctness of said account and
insisting that strict proof be made as to the correctness of said
account. Upon pleadings and proof, review of the Final
Settlement by the Jefferson County accountant, Daniel Nash
and testimony of Gregory H. Hawley Esq., with no other
witness being presented by the Petitioners or Respondent and
the court having examined and audited said account for final
12
1200401 and 1210153
settlement and considered the testimony and pleadings filed
regarding said final settlement.
"It is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
"The Court finds that the said Gregory H. Hawley as
conservator, is chargeable with receipts in the sum of
$2,027,347.94 as shown by his account of the assets received
by him and that he is entitled to credits for monies paid out
in and about the conservatorship and for the support and
maintenance of JoAnn F. Bashinsky in the amount of
$1,464,083.08, further access to accounts in the amount of
$563,264.86 was returned to Ms. Bashinsky upon the ruling
by the Alabama Supreme Court ordering the temporary
guardian and conservator to account for all Ms. Bashinsky's
funds and property and to dismiss the emergency petition.
"The court with no witness disputing said accounting,
finds that said accounting and vouchers are accepted and
allowed and ordered recorded. It is further ordered that the
cost of the proceeding be and is hereby taxed against the
estate. The conservator is awarded a fee of Eighty-Six
Thousand ($86,000.00) Dollars for his service in said case,
along with reimbursement of $1,037.02 paid by him to Source
One Legal copy. That an attorney fee due to Sirote & Permutt
PC., in representation of Mr. Hawley as the Conservator of
the estate in the amount of $80,083.15, is to be paid as costs
of the estate. Further that the Guardian and Conservator,
Gregory H. Hawley and the Surety Ohio Casualty Insurance
Company are hereby discharged and relieved from all further
liability."
(Emphasis added.)
On January 3, 2021, Ms. Bashinsky died. Shortly thereafter,
Tamera Erskine was named personal representative of the estate of
13
1200401 and 1210153
Ms. Bashinsky. On January 4, 2021, Guin filed a "Court Representative
Fee Petition" that provided a list of his expenses and his hours spent in
his capacity as guardian ad litem. On January 5, 2021, counsel for
Ms. Bashinsky filed a suggestion of death and requested that "this action
… be dismissed." On January 8, 2021, McKleroy and Townsend filed a
memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss and, along with that
memorandum: (1) a motion to substitute Erskine, the personal
representative of Ms. Bashinsky's estate, for Ms. Bashinsky; (2) a motion
for sanctions against Ash for allegedly violating the October 22, 2020,
order concerning trial publicity; and (3) a motion seeking payment of
attorney fees stemming from the litigation of the emergency petition.
On January 11, 2021, Judge Tucker entered an order requiring
"[t]he Estate of Joann Bashinsky" to pay Guin $56,035.75. On
January 22, 2021, Guin filed a motion to withdraw as guardian ad litem
because of Ms. Bashinsky's death. Judge Tucker granted that motion on
the same day. Also on January 22, 2021, Judge Tucker entered an
amended order concerning Guin's fee, and he again awarded Guin
$56,035.75 to be paid by "[t]he Estate of Joann Bashinsky." The amended
order further stated:
14
1200401 and 1210153
"C. Pursuant to [Ala. R. Civ. P.] 54(b) this judgment is
final as to the action and fees of J. Kenneth Guin, Jr. serving
as Guardian ad Litem and Court Representative, there is no
just reason for delay of entry of this final judgment as to
J. Kenneth Guin, Jr. serving as Guardian ad Litem and Court
Representative."
In all other respects, the amended order was essentially identical to
Judge Tucker's January 11, 2021, order.
On March 5, 2021, Ms. Bashinsky's attorneys filed a "Notice of
Substitution of Party for Purposes of Appeal Only," advising the probate
court that,
"pursuant to Rule 25, Ala. R. Civ. P., … Tamera K. Erskine,
as Personal Representative for the Estate of Joann F.
Bashinsky …. wishes to take an appeal in this case to the
Alabama Supreme Court and, as such, gives this notice of the
substitution of her for Joann Bashinsky in this matter for
purposes of appeal only."
That same day, Erskine filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge: (1)
Judge Tucker's December 11, 2020, order awarding fees to Hawley and
his attorneys, a sum totaling $167,120.17, and (2) Judge Tucker's
January 22, 2021, order awarding a fee of $56,035.75 to guardian
ad litem Guin.
On March 8, 2021, Judge Tucker entered an order that purported
to address several outstanding matters in this case that remained
15
1200401 and 1210153
pending following Ms. Bashinsky's death. First, the probate court
dismissed as moot McKleroy and Townsend's petition for appointment of
a permanent guardian and conservator for Ms. Bashinsky. On a related
note, the probate court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
but without prejudice, McKleroy and Townsend's requests for the probate
court to determine the validity of: (1) Ms. Bashinsky's termination of
Townsend's employment with her; (2) Ms. Bashinsky's termination of
McKleroy's appointment as her attorney-in-fact; and (3) Ms. Bashinsky's
power of attorney granted to Erskine. However, Judge Tucker also
concluded that he still had jurisdiction to entertain the motions that
McKleroy and Townsend had filed on January 8, 2021. Specifically, he
expressly declined to dismiss the motion for substitution of a party, the
motion for sanctions against Ash, and the motion for payment of
McKleroy and Townsend's attorney fees.
On March 23, 2021, McKleroy and Townsend filed a "Motion for
Setting Hearing Date to Conclude Conservatorship Matter," seeking a
date for arguing the outstanding motions that remained in the case.
Judge Tucker set a hearing for April 29, 2021. On April 16, 2021, Ash
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court arguing that the
16
1200401 and 1210153
probate court had no discretion to decide motions that were filed after it
had lost subject-matter jurisdiction and that the only action the probate
court could take after Bashinsky's death was to dismiss the entire action.
On April 20, 2021, Erskine filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
arguing that Ms. Bashinsky's death rendered the probate-court
proceedings "non-justiciable," which, she said, deprived the probate court
of jurisdiction in all matters related to those proceedings. On April 27,
2021, Judge Tucker stayed the proceedings. On October 18, 2021, Judge
Tucker sua sponte reconsidered his order staying the proceedings, and he
lifted the stay. That same day, Judge Tucker entered what he styled a
"Final Order" in which he purported to amend the March 8, 2021, order
and to dismiss "all issues that remained following the March 8, 2021,
order … WITH PREJUDICE." 7 (Capitalization in original.) On
November 29, 2021, McKleroy and Townsend filed a notice of appeal
challenging Judge Tucker's order dismissing the remaining issues.
7On October 18, 2021, Judge Tucker also entered an order recusing
himself from this case. We assume that that order was entered after
Judge Tucker's order purporting to lift the stay of proceedings and his
order purporting to dismiss all pending issues in the case.
17
1200401 and 1210153
On December 15, 2021, this Court dismissed both Ash's and
Erskine's petitions for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Erskine (No.
1200505, Dec. 15, 2021), and Ex parte Ash (No. 1200497, Dec. 15, 2021).
On February 28, 2021, McKleroy and Townsend filed a motion to dismiss
their appeal -- appeal no. 1210153 -- with each party to bear their own
costs. We now grant that motion and dismiss McKleroy and Townsend's
appeal. Accordingly, the only issues now before this Court are those
raised in Erskine's appeal regarding Judge Tucker's December 11, 2020,
order awarding fees to Hawley and his attorneys and Judge Tucker's
January 22, 2021, order awarding a fee to Guin.
II. Analysis
In the December 8, 2020, hearing concerning Hawley's "Petition for
Final Settlement of Conservatorship," Hawley testified:
"Your honor, I tell people all the time, you know, I think we
currently have 120 to 130 active conservatorship cases in the
office. We probably handled a couple of hundred over the past
few years. There's never been a case like this one. I hope there
never is again a case like this one."
The rendition of facts supports Hawley's sentiment: this is an unusual,
perhaps even sui generis, case born from an unfortunate set of
circumstances that is highly unlikely to reoccur. Nonetheless, for better
18
1200401 and 1210153
or worse, Erskine's appeal presents issues that must be resolved. We will
first address Erskine's appeal insofar as it challenges Judge Tucker's
December 11, 2020, order awarding fees to Hawley and his attorneys. We
will then turn to Erskine's appeal insofar as it challenges Judge Tucker's
January 22, 2021, order awarding a fee to Guin.
A. The December 11, 2020, Order Pertaining to Hawley
Erskine contends that Judge Tucker's December 11, 2020, order
awarding fees to Hawley and his attorneys exceeded this Court's
mandate in Ex parte Bashinsky, which stated that the probate court was
"to require the temporary guardian and conservator to account for all of
Ms. Bashinsky's funds and property." 319 So. 3d at 1263. According to
Erskine, "[t]his Court's mandate did not direct the Probate Court to hold
a hearing on the accounting filed by the temporary conservator; it did not
direct the Probate Court to award fees and/or costs to the temporary
conservator; and it did not direct the payment of attorney fees incurred
by the temporary conservator." Erskine's brief, p. 13. Erskine notes that
this Court has stated that, "when an appellate court remands a case, the
trial court's authority is limited to compliance with the directions
provided by the appellate court; it does not have the authority to reopen
19
1200401 and 1210153
for additional testimony except where expressly directed to do so."
Ex parte Shinaberry, 326 So. 3d 1037, 1043 n.3 (Ala. 2020). Erskine
further contends that, even if this Court's mandate did authorize Judge
Tucker to award fees to Hawley and his attorneys, the probate court lost
jurisdiction to do so after it dismissed the emergency petition on
August 28, 2020. See Erskine's brief, p. 13. Erskine also argues that
Judge Tucker could not order Ms. Bashinsky's "estate" to pay fees to
Hawley and his attorneys because, based on this Court's holding in
Ex parte Bashinsky that Judge King's October 17, 2019, order granting
an emergency petition was void due to violations of Ms. Bashinsky's
statutory and due-process rights, no guardianship or conservatorship
estate was ever created.
Hawley does not address most of Erskine's arguments. Instead, he
contends that Erskine's appeal is due to be dismissed because she filed
the appeal on March 5, 2021, challenging an order entered December 11,
2020, which was well outside the 42-day window for a timely appeal from
a final judgment. Hawley contends that Judge Tucker's December 11,
2020, order was an appealable order under § 12-22-21(5), Ala. Code 1975,
which provides:
20
1200401 and 1210153
"Appeal from the order, judgment or decree of the
probate court may be taken by the party aggrieved to the
circuit court or Supreme Court in the cases hereinafter
specified. Appeals to the Supreme Court shall be governed by
the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the time
for taking an appeal. Appeal to the circuit court in such cases
shall be within the time hereinafter specified:
"....
"(5) After a final settlement, upon any order, judgment
or decree, made on such settlement, or respecting any item or
matter thereof, or any previous settlement or item, or matter
thereof, within 42 days thereafter."
In other words, Hawley contends that the December 11, 2020, order was
a "final settlement" of a temporary guardianship/conservatorship, which
made it immediately appealable.
The fundamental problem with Hawley's argument is that in
Ex parte Bashinsky we made it abundantly clear that no guardianship
or conservatorship was ever created, and thus no "final settlement" could
have been entertained or approved by Judge Tucker. In Ex parte
Bashinsky, we unequivocally stated that "the representation and case-
presentation rights afforded to a respondent in §§ 26-2A-102 and 26-2A-
135[, Ala. Code 1975,] were applicable," that "[t]hose provisions, and
Ms. Bashinsky's basic due-process rights, were egregiously violated,"
21
1200401 and 1210153
that "the hearing appointing a temporary guardian and conservator was
a nullity," and that Judge King's "October 17, 2019, order appointing a
temporary guardian and conservator for Ms. Bashinsky is void." 319
So. 3d at 1262, 1263. In other words, because basic due-process
requirements were not followed, the probate court lacked the legal
authority to order Hawley to assume control of Ms. Bashinsky's life
decisions and personal assets. As Erskine observes in her appellate brief,
a guardianship or conservatorship begins when a probate court grants a
petition seeking one, not when the petition is filed or even when a
guardian ad litem is initially appointed. This Court explained as much in
the context of removing to a circuit court a guardianship or
conservatorship for a minor:
"Based upon the substantial similarity of the language
of § 12-11-41[, Ala. Code 1975,] and the language of § 26-2-2[,
Ala. Code 1975,] the reasoning that led us to the foregoing
conclusions in [Ex parte ]Smith[, 619 So. 2d 1374 (Ala. 1993)],
[Allen v. Estate of ]Juddine[, 60 So. 3d 852 (Ala. 2010)], and
DuBose[ v. Weaver, 68 So. 3d 814 (Ala. 2011),] regarding § 12-
11-41 now compels us to a comparable conclusion regarding
§ 26-2-2. The filing of a petition for letters of guardianship or
conservatorship does not begin '[t]he administration or
conduct of [the] guardianship or conservatorship'; rather, the
probate court must act upon the petition before the
guardianship or conservatorship may by subject to removal to
the circuit court.7 It likewise follows that, absent the existence
22
1200401 and 1210153
of a guardianship or conservatorship, the circuit court cannot
remove '[t]he administration or conduct of [the] guardianship
or conservatorship' from the probate court. Accordingly, as the
Court of Civil Appeals concluded in Ex parte Coffee County
Department of Human Resources, 771 So. 2d 485, 487 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2000), after also noting the similarity between § 12-
11-41 and § 26-2-2, 'the circuit court did not have jurisdiction
to enter a removal order before the probate court had acted
upon' the petition for letters of conservatorship.
"In the present case, James Sr. and Julie filed the
guardianship proceeding requesting that the probate court
determine whether Jo Ann is in need of a guardian or
conservator. Although there have been numerous proceedings
in the probate court concerning the question whether Jo Ann
is incapacitated in such a manner that requires the
appointment of a guardian or conservator, the probate court
has not yet answered that question. Likewise, it has not
entered an order concluding that Jo Ann is in need of a
guardian or conservator or appointing a guardian or
conservator. See Ala. Code 1975, § 26-2A-105(b) ('The court
may appoint a guardian as requested if it is satisfied that the
person for whom a guardian is sought is incapacitated and
that the appointment is necessary or desirable as a means of
providing continuing care and supervision of the person of the
incapacitated person.'); Ala. Code 1975, § 26-2A-135(f) ('After
hearing, upon finding that a basis for the appointment of a
conservator or other protective order has been established,
the court shall make an appointment or other appropriate
protective order.'). In other words, the probate court has not
entered an order creating a guardianship or conservatorship
for Jo Ann. Logically, because no guardianship or
conservatorship has been created for Jo Ann, there is no
'administration or conduct' of such guardianship or
23
1200401 and 1210153
conservatorship to be removed from the probate court to the
circuit court.
_______________
"7The probate court has subject-matter jurisdiction to
determine whether a minor is in need of a guardian or
conservator and whether a person is incapacitated and is in
need of a guardian or conservator. See Ala. Code 1975, § 26-
2A-31. The filing of a petition that raises the possibility of the
necessity for the appointment of a guardian or conservator,
however, is not the equivalent of creating a guardianship or
conservatorship that must be 'administ[ered] or conduct[ed].'
"…."
Ex parte Casey, 88 So. 3d 822, 829-30 (Ala. 2012) (footnote 8 omitted and
emphasis added).
Applying the understanding provided in Ex parte Casey to the
situation in this case, it is clear that no guardianship or conservatorship
that must be administered or conducted was created because, as we held
in Ex parte Bashinsky, the hearing addressing the emergency petition
was a nullity and the order appointing Hawley was void. The basis of our
decision was that no circumstances constituting an "emergency" upon
which to predicate the appointment of a temporary guardian and
conservator for Ms. Bashinsky were ever alleged or proven to exist, and
so the provisions in the Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective
24
1200401 and 1210153
Proceedings Act ("the AUGPPA"), § 26-2A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, for
holding an ex parte hearing to appoint a temporary guardian and
conservator did not apply. See Ex parte Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d at 1262-63.
Absent such an emergency, the probate court's authority to affect
Ms. Bashinsky's person and property depended upon the existence of
certain facts that were never established in this case, namely, her
incompetence and her need for protection. The lack of a properly
supported underlying finding of incompetence prevented the probate
court from possessing legitimate power to order Hawley to assume
control of Ms. Bashinsky's assets without her consent. In short, Hawley
never possessed valid legal authority to assume control of
Ms. Bashinsky's life decisions and personal assets because the probate
court did not adhere to the legal requirements necessary to bestow such
authority.
Logically, there can be no "final settlement" of a nonexistent
conservatorship. Indeed, § 26-5-7, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in part, that,
"[o]n the ... expiration of [the conservator's] authority ..., a final
settlement of the conservatorship must be made ...." (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, § 26-5-33, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in part, that, "[o]n the
25
1200401 and 1210153
termination of a conservatorship ... on the expiration of [the
conservator's] authority or otherwise, the court of probate may issue
process requiring the conservator to appear ... and file his or her accounts
and vouchers for a final settlement." (Emphasis added.) Hawley never
had valid legal authority as a conservator, and so no "final settlement" of
a conservatorship could be ordered.
As authority for Judge Tucker's approval of his "Petition for Final
Settlement of Conservatorship," Hawley points to this Court's mandate
in the conclusion of Ex parte Bashinsky that the probate court "require
the temporary guardian and conservator to account for all of
Ms. Bashinsky's funds and property." 319 So. 3d at 1263. Perhaps, to be
clearer, we could have said "purported temporary guardian and
conservator," but we did state that Judge King's October 17, 2019, order
appointing Hawley temporary guardian and conservator was "void,"
which clearly meant that Hawley never possessed valid legal authority
over Ms. Bashinsky's person or assets. The "accounting" we required was
for the purpose of having Hawley establish his own liability to
Ms. Bashinsky because he held control over Ms. Bashinsky's property
under color of law -- but absent her consent -- from October 17, 2019, to
26
1200401 and 1210153
August 28, 2020, not for the purpose of having Hawley account to the
probate court for a conservatorship. In other words, the accounting was
a matter of equity, 8 not a matter of a statutory "final settlement" of a
conservatorship. 9 We never said anything about a "final settlement," nor
could we have done so, because we ruled that the purported temporary
guardianship and conservatorship was void, and the petition for a
permanent guardian and conservator had not been adjudicated in any
way. Consequently, the fact that § 12-22-21(5) provides that an order on
"final settlement" is appealable is irrelevant to the circumstances in this
case. 10
8Section26-2A-3, Ala. Code 1975, provides that "the principles of
law and equity supplement" the provisions of the AUGPPA.
9In his December 11, 2020, order, Judge Tucker did not purport to
act based on the probate court's equitable powers, but, even if he had,
forcing the decedent estate of the one unquestionably innocent party in
this matter to pay Hawley and his attorneys fees in the absence of a
supported finding that Ms. Bashinsky was incompetent does not strike
us as particularly equitable.
10Because no guardianship or conservatorship was at issue, the
provision in Ala. Code 1975, § 26-5-1, that "[t]he court of probate from
which the appointment of a conservator is derived has jurisdiction of the
settlement, partial or final, of the accounts of the conservator" is also
irrelevant.
27
1200401 and 1210153
For Judge Tucker's December 11, 2020, order to be appealable,
therefore, it would have to have been otherwise final. In his motion to
dismiss Erskine's appeal, Hawley did argue that Judge Tucker's
December 11, 2020, order was appealable under § 12-22-20, Ala. Code
1975, which provides:
"An appeal lies to the circuit court or Supreme Court
from any final decree of the probate court, or from any final
judgment, order or decree of the probate judge; and, in all
cases where it may of right be done, the appellate court shall
render such decree, order or judgment as the probate court
ought to have rendered."
However, the difficulty with applying § 12-22-20 is that the December 11,
2020, order plainly was not a "final judgment" because there were several
other outstanding issues in this case at the time Judge Tucker entered
that order, including the pending petition for a permanent guardianship
and conservatorship. The litany of orders Judge Tucker subsequently
entered underscores the lack of finality of his December 11, 2020, order.11
11As our rendition of facts relates, Judge Tucker subsequently
entered: (1) the January 11, 2021, order awarding a fee to guardian
ad litem Guin; (2) the January 22, 2021, amended order reiterating the
award to guardian ad litem Guin; (3) the March 8, 2021, order that
purported to decide several outstanding issues; and (4) the October 18,
2021, order that Judge Tucker labeled a "Final Order" in which he
purported to amend the March 8, 2021, order and to dismiss "all issues
28
1200401 and 1210153
Moreover, Judge Tucker did not certify his December 11, 2020, order as
final and appealable pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Thus, the
record on appeal plainly refutes the notion that the December 11, 2020,
order was a "final judgment" under § 12-22-20. 12
Based on the foregoing, the December 11, 2020, order was, at most,
an interlocutory order, not a final judgment that was appealable under
§ 12-22-21(5). A nonfinal judgment cannot support an appeal. See, e.g.,
Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So. 2d 354, 362 (Ala. 2004)
(" ' "When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final
judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero
motu." ' " (quoting Tatum v. Freeman, 858 So. 2d 979, 980 (Ala. Civ. App.
2003), quoting in turn Powell v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 293 Ala. 101,
102, 300 So. 2d 359, 360 (1974))). Because the order appealed from was
not final, it is irrelevant whether Erskine's appeal was untimely. See,
e.g., Dyas v. Stringfellow, 333 So. 3d 128, 132 & n.3 (Ala. 2021)
that remained following the March 8, 2021, order … WITH
PREJUDICE."
12Indeed, in his appellate brief, Hawley did not cite § 12-22-20 as
authority that Judge Tucker's December 11, 2020, order was final and
appealable, probably because this Court, on October 1, 2021, had denied
his motion to dismiss without comment.
29
1200401 and 1210153
(dismissing appeal because "no valid, final judgment" had been entered
by the trial court and noting that, therefore, this Court would "pretermit
discussion of [the appellee's] argument that the appeal should be
dismissed as to him because the plaintiffs did not file a timely notice of
appeal"); Ex parte Harrington, 289 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Ala. 2019)
(concluding that a trial court's judgment was nonfinal and could not
support an appeal in lieu of assessing whether the appeal was untimely).
Accordingly, Erskine's appeal, insofar as it challenges Judge Tucker's
December 11, 2020, order, is due to be dismissed as having been taken
from a nonfinal judgment.
B. The January 22, 2021, Order Pertaining to Guin
Erskine briefly argues that Ms. Bashinsky's death deprived the
probate court of subject-matter jurisdiction to award a fee to guardian
ad litem Guin. See Erskine's brief, p. 19. As our rendition of the facts
noted, on October 16, 2020, Judge Tucker appointed Guin as guardian ad
litem for Ms. Bashinsky with respect to the petition for a permanent
guardianship and conservatorship, which was still pending in the
probate court at that time. Because § 26-2A-52, Ala. Code 1975, which is
part of the AUGPPA, provides that, "[a]t any point in a proceeding, a
30
1200401 and 1210153
court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of a
minor or other person if the court determines that representation of the
interest otherwise would be inadequate," Judge Tucker clearly had
jurisdiction to make Guin's appointment. Then Ms. Bashinsky
unexpectedly died on January 3, 2021, thus obviously ending any need
for a proceeding concerning her capacity. Erskine argues:
"The Probate Court lost subject-matter jurisdiction upon the
death of Joann Bashinsky and/or the filing of a Suggestion of
Death and could do nothing more except to dismiss this action.
… Therefore, [Judge Tucker's] award of fees to the guardian
ad litem is void for lack of jurisdiction and must be reversed."
Erskine's brief, pp. 19-20. Thus, Erskine appears to be questioning
whether Judge Tucker had ancillary jurisdiction after Ms. Bashinsky's
death to award Guin any fee.
However, the merits of the foregoing argument are not properly
before us because Judge Tucker's January 22, 2021, order was not
appealable. As we noted in the rendition of the facts, that order contained
the formulaic language of a Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., order, but a proper
Rule 54(b) order is one "where the court has completely disposed of one
of a number of claims, or one of multiple parties, and has made an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay." Committee
31
1200401 and 1210153
Comments on 1973 Adoption of Rule 54. The January 22, 2021, order did
not dispose of a claim or any actual party in this case. Moreover, a
Rule 54(b) certification is not proper if " ' "the issues in the claim being
certified and a claim that will remain pending in the trial court ' "are so
closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an
unreasonable risk of inconsistent results." ' " ' " Fuller v. Birmingham-
Jefferson Cnty. Transit Auth., 147 So. 3d 907, 911 (Ala. 2013) (quoting
Lighting Fair, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 63 So. 3d 1256, 1263 (Ala. 2010) (other
citations omitted)). In Erskine's "Statement of the Issues" attached to her
notice of appeal, she listed one issue as:
"Whether the death of Joann Bashinsky on January 3,
2021, and the January 5, 2021, filing of a Suggestion of Death
and Motion to Dismiss deprived the probate court of subject-
matter jurisdiction and renders its January 22, 2021, final
judg[ment] awarding attorney fees and costs to the guardian
ad litem, Ken Guin, void?"13
Unsurprisingly, Erskine made this exact same argument with respect to
all the remaining motions before the probate court in her motion to
dismiss that Judge Tucker ruled on in his March 8, 2021, order. Thus,
13Erskine essentially repeats this statement in her "Statement of
the Issues" in her appellate brief. See Erskine's brief, p. 4.
32
1200401 and 1210153
there clearly was an intertwining issue with respect to the issue raised
on appeal and the matters still purportedly before Judge Tucker at the
time he purported to certify the January 22, 2021, order as final pursuant
to Rule 54(b). Consequently, the probate court's January 22, 2021, order
was not a proper Rule 54(b) order, and therefore, it was not an appealable
order. 14 See, e.g., Dzwonkowski, 892 So. 2d at 361 ("[T]he trial court
recited the formula for certification of a judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P. However, '[n]ot every order has the requisite element of
finality that can trigger the operation of Rule 54(b).' Goldome Credit
Corp. v. Player, 869 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).").
Moreover, Judge Tucker's March 8, 2021, order did not resolve that
intertwining of issues even though the probate court purported to dismiss
the request for a permanent guardian and conservator as well as
"other claims which hinge on a determination of Mrs.
Bashinsky’s incapacity or susceptibility to undue influence,
14The fact that neither Erskine nor Guin raised this issue does not
impede us from reaching this conclusion. See, e.g., Fuller v. Birmingham-
Jefferson Cnty. Transit Auth., 147 So. 3d 907, 911 (Ala. 2013) ("[N]one of
the parties argues on appeal that the trial court's certification of its …
order as final under Rule 54(b) was inappropriate. However,
jurisdictional matters, such as whether an order is final so as to support
an appeal, are of such importance that an appellate court may take notice
of them ex mero motu.").
33
1200401 and 1210153
namely, the validity of Mrs. Bashinsky's purported October
2019 termination of Petitioner Patty Townsend, the validity
of Mrs. Bashinsky's purported October 2019 termination of
her appointment of Petitioner John P. McKleroy, Jr. as her
attorney-in-fact, or the request for a declaration as to the
validity of an October 2019 Power of Attorney executed by
Mrs. Bashinsky."
This is because on March 5, 2021, Erskine appealed Judge Tucker's
December 11, 2020, order and his January 22, 2021, order. When an
appeal is taken, unless it is from a proper Rule 54(b) order, the appeal
divests the lower court of jurisdiction over the case until the appellate
court provides a disposition of the appeal -- even if the appeal is
premature, i.e., from a nonfinal judgment. See, e.g., Dyas, 333 So. 3d at
132 ("[T]he plaintiffs' premature notice of appeal divested the trial court
of jurisdiction to rule upon the remaining claims in the case. ... Therefore,
the trial court's January 17, 2020, order was a nullity. ... Accordingly, the
trial court has not effectively adjudicated all the claims against all the
parties in this case, and there is no valid, final judgment for this Court
to review."); Williams v. Mari Props., LLC, 329 So. 3d 1237, 1240 (Ala.
2020) ("[W]hen a final judgment is appealed from the probate court ...,
the probate court is without jurisdiction to proceed further. This is also
true even if the order that is appealed, in actuality, is a nonfinal order.");
34
1200401 and 1210153
Busby v. Lewis, 993 So. 2d 31, 34 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (holding that a
trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment resolving pending
claims while the action was before this court on appeal, despite the fact
that the appeal had been prematurely taken from an interlocutory order,
citing Etheredge v. Genie Indus., Inc., 632 So. 2d 1324, 1325 (Ala. 1994)).
Thus, because this case was appealed on March 5, 2021, Judge Tucker
had no jurisdiction to enter the March 8, 2021, order, and that order is a
nullity. See, e.g., Harden v. Laney, 118 So. 3d 186, 187 (Ala. 2013)
("Because jurisdiction over Harden's appeal rested in this Court when the
trial court entered its order purporting to strike Harden's notice of
appeal, the trial court's order is a nullity ....").
In fact, the same is true of Judge Tucker's October 18, 2021, order
that was labeled a "Final Order" in which he purported to amend the
March 8, 2021, order and to dismiss "all issues that remained following
the March 8, 2021, order … WITH PREJUDICE." The probate court had
no jurisdiction to enter the October 18, 2021, order because jurisdiction
of the case rests with this Court until it has been determined otherwise.
See, e.g., Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc., 446 So. 2d 605, 608-09 (Ala. 1984)
(explaining that, until an appellate court makes a determination
35
1200401 and 1210153
regarding its own jurisdiction, the appellate court and trial court are
"bound by the presumption that [the appellate court has] jurisdiction,"
citing Thames v. Gunter-Dunn, Inc., 365 So. 2d 1216 (Ala. 1979)),
overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Andrews, 520 So. 2d 507 (Ala.
1987).
Based on the foregoing, the January 22, 2021, order was not a final,
appealable judgment because Judge Tucker's certification of finality
under Rule 54(b) was ineffective, and he lacked jurisdiction to enter any
orders after Erskine's appeal was filed. Because the January 22, 2021,
order was not a final judgment, Erskine's appeal, insofar as it challenges
that order, is due to be dismissed as having been taken from a nonfinal
judgment.
III. Conclusion
McKleroy and Townsend's motion to dismiss appeal no. 1210153 is
granted. As to Erskine's appeal, appeal no. 1200401, Judge Tucker's
December 11, 2020, order awarding fees to Hawley and his attorneys was
not a "final settlement" of a guardianship or conservatorship, and it was
not otherwise a final judgment, and therefore it was not an appealable
order. Judge Tucker's January 22, 2021, order awarding a fee to Guin
36
1200401 and 1210153
was not appropriate for Rule 54(b) certification because it did not
completely dispose of a claim or a party and it involved an issue that was
intertwined with issues that remained before the probate court. Neither
of those orders became final by virtue of Judge Tucker's March 8, 2021,
order or his October 18, 2021, order because those latter orders were
entered after Erskine's March 5, 2021, appeal divested the probate court
of jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, Erskine's appeal is dismissed, and
the cause is remanded for the probate court to enter a proper final
judgment in this case.
1200401 -- APPEAL DISMISSED.
Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Parker, C.J., concurs in part and concurs in the result, with opinion.
Bolin, J., dissents, with opinion.
Shaw, Wise, and Mitchell, JJ., recuse themselves.
1210153 -- APPEAL DISMISSED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart,
JJ., concur.
Shaw, Wise, and Mitchell, JJ., recuse themselves.
37
1200401 and 1210153
PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in part and concurring in the result
in appeal no. 1200401).
I concur in all of the main opinion except footnote 9's comment on
the potential equity of Gregory H. Hawley's request for compensation
from the estate, an issue that is not before us because we are dismissing
that appeal. I also note that, when this case returns to the probate court,
Hawley is free to argue that he is entitled to compensation as a trustee
in invitum. See § 26-2A-3, Ala. Code 1975; Moody v. Bibb, 50 Ala. 245,
245-49 (1874); cf. Mitchell v. Parker, 227 Ala. 676, 678, 151 So. 842, 843
(1933); 90A C.J.S. Trusts § 637 (2020).
38
1200401 and 1210153
BOLIN, Justice (dissenting in appeal no. 1200401).
I respectfully disagree with the main opinion's conclusions
regarding the import of the Jefferson Probate Court's orders of
December 11, 2020, and January 22, 2021. Therefore, in appeal no.
1200401, I dissent. Although I believe that the appeal should be
dismissed in part, insofar as it challenges the December 11, 2020, order,
I do so because the appeal from that order was untimely, not, as the main
opinion concludes, because that order was not sufficiently final and
appealable. Insofar as the appeal arises from the January 22, 2021,
order, I believe that that order was properly certified as final pursuant
to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and I would affirm that order on the merits.
In appeal no. 1200401, Tamera Erskine, as the personal
representative of the estate of Joann Bashinsky ("Ms. Bashinsky"),
deceased, appeals from two orders of the probate court entered after this
Court's decision in Ex parte Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d 1240 (Ala. 2020). In
the first order -- a "Decree on Final Settlement" entered on December 11,
2020 -- the probate court awarded Gregory H. Hawley a temporary
conservator's fee and awarded attorneys' fees to the law firm
representing Hawley. In the second order, entered on January 22, 2021,
39
1200401 and 1210153
the probate court awarded J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., who had been appointed
the successor guardian ad litem for Bashinsky in relation to a pending
petition seeking the appointment of a permanent guardian and
conservator for Ms. Bashinsky, a fee for his services.
Ms. Bashinsky died on January 3, 2021, while the petition for a
permanent guardian and conservator was still pending. On January 5,
2021, Ms. Bashinsky's attorneys filed a suggestion of death and moved to
dismiss the case. On March 5, 2021, Erskine, who had been appointed
the personal representative of Ms. Bashinsky's estate, filed a notice of
appeal, challenging the December 11, 2020, and January 22, 2021,
orders.
The December 11, 2020, Order
Erskine argues that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to enter
its December 11, 2020, order because, she asserts: (1) the probate court
exceeded this Court's mandate in Ex parte Bashinsky by entering the
order; (2) the probate court lost subject-matter jurisdiction on August 28,
2020, when it dismissed an emergency petition seeking the appointment
of a temporary guardian and conservator for Ms. Bashinsky; and (3) the
probate court's order of October 17, 2019, appointing Hawley as Ms.
40
1200401 and 1210153
Bashinsky's temporary guardian and conservator was declared void in
Ex parte Bashinsky and, thus, no estate was ever established that could
be ordered to pay a conservator's fee. Hawley responds that Erskine's
appeal is untimely to the extent that it challenges the December 11, 2020,
order and that the probate court did not exceed this Court's mandate in
Ex parte Bashinsky.
At the outset, I note that John P. McKleroy, Jr., and Patty
Townsend filed the emergency petition for a temporary guardian and
conservator and the petition for a permanent guardian and conservator,
pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 26-2A-102 and § 26-2A-135, which are part
of the Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act
("AUGPPA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 26-2A-1 et seq. Section 26-2A-31, Ala.
Code 1975, gives a probate court jurisdiction over guardianship and
protective proceedings, § 26-2A-31(a), with the "power to make order[s],
judgments, and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to
administer justice in the matters that come before it," § 26-2A-31(b), and
further provides that "[n]o provision of [the AUGPPA] shall be construed
to void, abate, or diminish the powers of equity jurisdiction, when
invoked, heretofore or hereafter granted by statute to certain probate
41
1200401 and 1210153
courts," § 26-2A-31(e), which would include the Jefferson Probate Court
in this matter. Section 26-5-1, Ala. Code 1975, gives a probate court
appointing a conservator jurisdiction over "settlement, partial or final, of
the accounts of the conservator."
Section 26-2A-107, Ala. Code 1975, provides for the appointment of
a temporary guardian for a protected person when there is an
"emergency" situation. Although the AUGPPA does not expressly
provide for temporary orders to protect the property and business
interests of a protected person, §§ 26-2A-30, 26-2A-130, 26-2A-136, and
26-2A-137, Ala. Code 1975, allow for the appointment of a special or
temporary conservator to protect such interests. See Ex parte Jamison,
336 So. 3d 175 (Ala. 2021). Section 26-2A-33, Ala. Code 1975, adopts the
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and the Alabama Rules of Appellate
Procedure to govern AUGPPA proceedings involving incapacitated
persons, except when the AUGPPA specifically provides otherwise or
when doing so would be inconsistent with the AUGPPA. Accordingly, a
proper party may seek emergency protection for the benefit of an
incapacitated person, as well as for an incapacitated person's property
and business interests.
42
1200401 and 1210153
I agree with Hawley that Erskine's appeal is untimely. The probate
court is a court of general and original jurisdiction regarding the
administration of guardianships and conservatorships. See Art. VI, § 144,
Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.)15; § 12-13-1(b)(6) and (b)(7), Ala. Code
1975; and § 26-2A-31(a), Ala. Code 1975.
Section 12-22-21(5), Ala. Code 1975, provides:
"Appeal from the order, judgment or decree of the
probate court may be taken by the party aggrieved to the …
Supreme Court in the cases hereinafter specified. Appeals to
the Supreme Court shall be governed by the Alabama Rules
of Appellate Procedure, including the time for taking an
appeal. ...
"....
"(5) After a final settlement, upon any order,
judgment or decree, made on such settlement, or
respecting any item or matter thereof, or any
previous settlement or item, or matter thereof ...."
Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., provides that,
15In Ex parte Casey, 88 So. 3d 822, 827 n.4 (Ala. 2012), this Court
explained that the use of the term guardianship in § 144 might have
referred to either the guardianship of the person of a minor or an
incapacitated person, which is still referred to as the guardianship under
the AUGPPA, or the guardianship of the property (i.e., the estate) of a
minor or an incapacitated person, which is referred to as a
conservatorship under the AUGPPA.
43
1200401 and 1210153
"[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein, in all cases in which
an appeal is permitted by law as of right to the supreme court
…, the notice of appeal required by Rule 3[, Ala. R. App. P.,]
shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 42 days
(6 weeks) of the date of the entry of the judgment or order
appealed from ...."
Section 12-22-21 sets out certain probate-court orders that are
immediately appealable. To promote immediate appellate review of
certain orders entered in the course of probate-court proceedings, the
legislature has provided for appeals of certain orders that are not final in
the traditional sense, and such orders do not need to be certified as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Moseley v. Cook, 150 So. 3d
169, 171 n.3 (Ala. 2014)(Moore, C.J., dissenting)("This express statutory
authority [§ 12-22-21] renders a Rule 54(b) certification of finality
unnecessary."); cf. Brown v. Brown, 21 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App.
2009)(holding that testator's son had the right to appeal the circuit
court's summary judgment determining the validity of the will proferred
by testator's widow even though § 12-22-21(1) provides for appeal from a
probate court's nonfinal order on a contest challenging the validity of a
will but does not specifically provide a right to appeal a similar order
entered by a circuit court).
44
1200401 and 1210153
Additionally, in Ex parte Bashinsky, this Court's decision was final
as to the matters before it, and further proceedings had to be executed
according to our mandate. Ex parte Edwards, 727 So. 2d 792, 794 (Ala.
1988)(noting that an appellate court's decision is final as to all matters
before it, becomes the law of the case, and must be executed according to
the appellate mandate). A trial court has a duty to comply with the
mandate given by an appellate court, Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile,
Inc., 87 So. 3d 1172 (Ala. 2011), and may not exceed the scope of an
appellate court's mandate, Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc.,
279 So. 3d 568 (Ala. 2018). A trial court can neither address issues
already decided by an appellate court's decision in the case nor act beyond
the appellate court's express mandate. Id.In this case, the probate court appointed Hawley as temporary
guardian and conservator, and in Ex parte Bashinsky, this Court ordered
the probate court to require Hawley to account for Ms. Bashinsky's funds
and property. Our mandate cannot be couched in terms of requiring
something less than Hawley's statutory duty to complete a final
accounting of Ms. Bashinsky's property and financial interests, which
45
1200401 and 1210153
Hawley had been conserving, to protect Ms. Bashinsky, pursuant to an
order of the probate court.
Moreover, looking at the substance of the December 11, 2020, order,
that order was a final settlement contemplated by 12-22-21(5). Title 26,
Chapter 5, of the Alabama Code addresses the settlements of
conservator's accounts. Section 26-5-7, Ala. Code 1975, sets out when a
final settlement is required. Specifically, § 26-5-7 provides, in pertinent
part: "On the ... expiration of [the conservator's] authority ..., a final
settlement of the conservatorship must be made ...." (Emphasis added.)
Section 26-5-8, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the conservator must file a
full account of the conservatorship accompanied by vouchers and verified
by affidavit. Section 26-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, requires the probate court
to appoint a day for determining whether to approve the final settlement
and to give notice to the conservator and the protected person. Here, the
probate court properly held a hearing on the final settlement of the
temporary conservatorship, as required by statute. Ms. Bashinsky was
given notice of the hearing and was represented by counsel. Section 26-
5-10, Ala. Code 1975, requires the probate court to
"examine the vouchers and to audit and state the account,
requiring evidence in support of all such vouchers or items of
46
1200401 and 1210153
the account as may be contested or as may not on examination
appear to the court to be just and proper, such evidence to be
taken by affidavit or in any other legal mode."
(Emphasis added.) Here, the probate court heard testimony from an
accountant and from Hawley. Section 26-5-11, Ala. Code 1975, which is
titled, in part, "Final settlement generally," requires the probate court to
render its decree of the settlement, specifically stating that, "[a]fter the
examination of the vouchers and the audit and statement of the account,
the court must render a decree passing the same ...." (Emphasis added.)
Section 26-5-13, Ala. Code 1975, allows for fees or other
compensation and attorney's fees for which a conservator "is entitled
from an estate up to the time of [any annual, partial, or final] settlement
...." Section 26-5-16, Ala. Code 1975, provides that a conservator "is
entitled for his or her services to reasonable compensation" as well as "an
allowance ... of actual expenses necessarily incurred." Section 26-5-33,
Ala. Code 1975, provides that, "[o]n the termination of a conservatorship
... on the expiration of [the conservator's] authority or otherwise, the
court of probate may issue process requiring the conservator to appear ...
and file his or her accounts and vouchers for a final settlement."
47
1200401 and 1210153
(Emphasis added.) Section 26-5-15, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in
pertinent part:
"Whenever any conservator shall file any annual,
partial, or final settlement in any court having jurisdiction
thereof, the court shall, at the request of such conservator,
require that notice thereof be given in the same manner as
required by law in cases of final settlements. Any order or
decree of the court on such settlement after such notice shall
be final and conclusive as to all items of receipts and
disbursements and other transactions and matters shown
therein and as to all fees and compensation fixed or allowed
to such conservator and attorney and appeals therefrom shall
and must be taken in the manner provided for from any other
final decrees of such court."
(Emphasis added.)
In this case, Hawley's accounting of Ms. Bashinsky's assets was
examined and audited by the probate court, and the probate court
entered an order of final settlement, accepting and passing on the
accounting and audit and discharging both Hawley and his surety. The
probate court's order left nothing further for either Hawley or the probate
court to do or accomplish in the settlement of the temporary guardianship
and conservatorship. The term "final settlement" signifies that " 'nothing
remain[s] to be done by an administrator or by the court in the settlement
of [the] estate.' " Boyd v. Franklin, 919 So. 2d 1166, 1173 (Ala. 2005)
48
1200401 and 1210153
(quoting Stevens v. Tucker, 87 Ind. 109, 115 (1882)). The probate court's
final order as to Hawley's tenure as temporary conservator was entered
on December 11, 2020. Erskine filed her notice of appeal on March 5,
2021, outside of the 42-day time limit for an appeal. Without a timely
filed notice of appeal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider
any issues, even an issue over which the trial court had no subject-matter
jurisdiction. Erskine's argument that subject-matter jurisdiction may be
challenged at any time is misguided here, because the filing in which it
is challenged must nevertheless be timely for the reviewing court to have
the jurisdiction to consider any argument the filing contains. Beatty v.
Carmichael, 293 So. 3d 874, 877 (Ala. 2019).
Moreover, even if Erskine had timely appealed, a circumstance that
clearly is absent, the probate court did not err in awarding fees to
Hawley. Erskine argues that there was no estate created from which to
pay Hawley's fees because, as this Court held in Ex parte Bashinsky, the
probate court's order establishing the temporary guardianship and
conservatorship was a nullity. However, this Court held that the probate
court's order was a nullity because there had not been a proper
emergency hearing that bestowed and safeguarded the statutory and
49
1200401 and 1210153
due-process protections to which Ms. Bashinsky was entitled and because
there had been no showing that Ms. Bashinsky was at immediate risk of
sustaining substantial harm to her health, safety, or welfare. It is clear
from this Court's discussion in Ex parte Bashinsky that the probate court
had not addressed a situation that constituted an emergency under the
AUGPPA. 319 So. 3d at 1257-60 (discussing what constitutes an
emergency under the AUGPPA). Nevertheless, after the probate court
appointed Hawley and ordered him to act on Ms. Bashinsky's behalf to
protect her and her assets, Hawley served both Ms. Bashinsky and her
estate in good faith in accordance with the court order appointing him as
temporary guardian and conservator. Hawley accepted the appointment
at a time when he was serving as the probate-court-appointed general
conservator for Jefferson County, see § 26-2-26, Ala. Code 1975, and as a
lawyer, i.e., an officer of the court. The probate court had before it a
substantial financial estate, reflected in the record to be approximately
$218 million, and the petition before it alleged that $23.5 million had
previously been "loaned" to a relative and that another $17.5 million was
about to be transferred from one financial entity to another for the benefit
of this same relative. Hawley acted as any conscientious, qualified
50
1200401 and 1210153
attorney, particularly one serving as the general conservator of the
county, would likely do under the circumstances; that is, he accepted the
probate court's appointment as temporary guardian and conservator and
maintained the financial status quo until the probate court could
judicially ascertain whether Ms. Bashinsky possessed the mental
capacity to do whatever she wanted with her money and her estate. When
this Court subsequently ordered the probate court to have Hawley
account for Ms. Bashinsky's funds and property, Hawley once again acted
in good faith based on both the order appointing him as well as the order
requiring final settlement.
Although the order appointing Hawley as temporary guardian and
conservator was entered in error and was subsequently declared void by
this Court, the purpose of a temporary guardianship and conservatorship
for any alleged incapacitated person (or a minor) is to preserve the health
and welfare of the person and/or to preserve his or her estate from loss,
waste, or misspending prior to a hearing on a petition for a permanent
guardianship and conservatorship can be conducted. Erskine's argument
is that because Hawley should have never been appointed as temporary
guardian and conservator after a defective hearing, he should not be
51
1200401 and 1210153
compensated for his work. Although this Court disagreed with the
probate court that a proper hearing had been held to establish that an
emergency existed that warranted the judicial creation of a temporary
estate for an incapacitated person, Hawley was not in a position to
question the probate court; rather, he acted pursuant to a probate court
order that was valid on its face in a pending proceeding involving
discovery and preparation, a duty to protect Ms. Bashinsky and her
estate, and time necessarily spent in court. Later, this Court essentially
ordered Hawley to finalize his work as a fiduciary on behalf of Ms.
Bashinsky by appearing before the probate court and filing his accounts
and vouchers for a final settlement of his actions as temporary
conservator. This was mandated, despite the fact that this Court had
determined that there had been no proper hearing, affording Ms.
Bashinsky the statutory and due-process safeguards to which she was
entitled, to establish the existence of emergency circumstances
necessitating a temporary guardianship and conservatorship. When
Hawley was appointed, the probate proceedings entailed requests for
both temporary and permanent guardianships and conservatorships, and
by accepting the appointment he submitted personally to the continuing
52
1200401 and 1210153
jurisdiction of the probate court in any proceeding relating to Ms.
Bashinsky's estate. § 26-2A-141, Ala. Code 1975.
I submit that to disallow fees for a conservator who acted pursuant
to a court order that was valid on its face would ignore the reality that
there was an ongoing proceeding in the probate court. It was neither the
duty, nor the office, of Hawley to question the validity of the order at the
time of his appointment or during the duration of his services; rather, it
was Hawley's duty as both an officer of the court and as an appointee of
the court to act professionally to protect Ms. Bashinsky's best interests
regarding her property.
It goes without saying that disallowing such earned fees could
make it difficult for probate judges to find willing counsel and other
persons to serve as court representatives, guardians ad litem, medical
personnel, fiduciaries, and in other roles for minors and incapacitated
persons in AUGPPA proceedings. If such earned fees are not properly
awarded in a proper judicial proceeding, then such fees should equitably
be assessed against the losing party -- not in essence against the
appointed lawyer. In this regard, I add that I agree completely with that
portion of Chief Justice Parker's special writing noting that "when this
53
1200401 and 1210153
case returns to the probate court, Hawley is free to argue that he is
entitled to compensation as a trustee in invitum." ___ So. 3d at ___.
Of course, this does not mean, however, that court-appointed
guardians and conservators will or should be compensated regardless of
the quality of their performance; however, that is clearly not an issue
before this Court in this case
The January 22, 2021, Order
Erskine argues that Ms. Bashinsky's death deprived the probate
court of subject-matter jurisdiction to award fees to Guin, the guardian
ad litem appointed to represent Ms. Bashinsky in what was then a still
pending proceeding on the petition for a permanent guardianship and
conservatorship. 16 Erskine argues that Ms. Bashinsky's death ended the
necessity for a hearing on whether Ms. Bashinsky was incapacitated or
in need of protection -- a point not in dispute. However,
"[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction is a simple concept:
" 'Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to
hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong. The
16In my opinion, the probate court properly certified the order
awarding fees to Guin as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and
Erskine's appeal, insofar as it challenges that order, was timely.
54
1200401 and 1210153
principle of subject matter jurisdiction relates to a
court's inherent authority to deal with the case or
matter before it. The term means not simply
jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying
the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the
class of cases to which the particular case belongs.'
"21 C.J.S. Courts § 11 (2006). In determining a trial court's
subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court asks ' "only whether
the trial court had the constitutional and statutory authority"
to hear the case.' Russell v. State, 51 So. 3d 1026, 1028 (Ala.
2010) (quoting Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala.
2006)). Problems with subject-matter jurisdiction arise if, for
example, a party files a probate action in a juvenile court, a
divorce action in a probate court, or a bankruptcy petition in
a circuit court, because the nature or class of those actions is
limited to a particular forum with the authority to handle
them. There are, however, no problems with subject-matter
jurisdiction merely because a party files an action that
ostensibly lacks a probability of merit."
Ex parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, Inc., 148 So. 3d 39, 42-43 (Ala.
2013).
On October 16, 2020, the probate court appointed Guin to serve as
guardian ad litem for Ms. Bashinsky in the pending proceeding on the
petition for a permanent guardianship and conservatorship. Section 26-
2A-52, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the AUGPPA, provides, in pertinent part:
"At any point in a proceeding, a court may appoint a guardian ad litem
to represent the interest of a minor or other person if the court
55
1200401 and 1210153
determines that representation of the interest otherwise would be
inadequate." (Emphasis added.)
Guin argues that, although Ms. Bashinsky's death mooted
McKleroy and Townsend's petition for a permanent guardianship and
conservatorship, the probate court still retained subject-matter
jurisdiction over collateral matters arising out of the
guardianship/conservatorship proceedings. Guin argues that such
collateral matters include the award of fees for his service as guardian
ad litem.
Section 26-2A-142, Ala. Code 1975, provides:
"(a) If not otherwise reasonably compensated for
services rendered, any court representative, attorney,
physician, conservator, or special conservator appointed in a
protective proceeding and any attorney whose services
resulted in a protective order or in an order that was
beneficial to a protected person's estate is entitled to
reasonable compensation from the estate. The conservator
shall be allowed from the estate of the protect[ed] person all
reasonable premiums paid on his or her bond and
reimbursement of any court costs paid.
"(b) If not otherwise reasonably compensated for
services rendered, any court representative, attorney,
physician appointed in a guardianship, and any attorney
whose services resulted in a guardianship order or in an order
that was beneficial to a ward is entitled to reasonable
compensation from the estate. The guardian may be
56
1200401 and 1210153
reimbursed from the estate of the ward for any court costs
paid.
"(c) Except when the petitioner is related by blood or
marriage to the individual who is the subject of the
proceeding, if the assets of the estate in a protective
proceeding or in a guardianship proceeding are not sufficient
to provide reasonable compensation and pay court costs as
permitted in subsections (a) and (b), the compensation of any
guardian ad litem, court representative, or physician
appointed by the court and court costs associated with the
petition or motion may be taxed by the court with regard to
any particular petition or motion presented to the court to the
petitioner as additional costs to the petitioner."
Erskine focuses on the word "estate" in § 26-2A-142(a) and (b),
arguing that because no estate was created, Guin is not entitled to any
fees. Again, I disagree. 17 Section 26-2A-31, Ala. Code 1975, sets out the
subject-matter jurisdiction of the probate court under the AUGPPA and
provides:
"(a) To the full extent permitted by the constitution and
as permitted under Article 2 of Chapter 2B of [Title 26], the
court has jurisdiction over all subject matter relating to
estates of protected persons and protection of minors and
incapacitated persons.
17Section
26-2A-20(6), Ala. Code 1975, defines "estate" to "include[]
the property of the person whose affairs are subject to [the AUGPPA]."
57
1200401 and 1210153
"(b) The court has full power to make order[s],
judgments, and decrees and take all other action necessary
and proper to administer justice in the matters that come
before it.
"(c) The court has jurisdiction over protective
proceedings and guardianship proceedings.
"(d) If both guardianship and protective proceedings as
to the same person are commenced or pending in the same
court, the proceedings may be consolidated.
"(e) No provision of [the AUGPPA] shall be construed to
void, abate, or diminish the powers or equity jurisdiction,
when invoked, heretofore or hereafter granted by statute to
certain probate courts."
The statutory grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to the probate
court found in § 26-2A-31 is broad. The probate court is granted the "full
power to make order[s], judgments, and decrees and take all other action
necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters that come
before it." § 26-2A-31(b). In Russell v. State, 51 So. 3d 1026 (Ala. 2010),
the State filed a condemnation action in a probate court, which entered a
final condemnation order. The property owner appealed the order to a
circuit court for a trial de novo. The circuit court granted the property
owner's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceedings on the ground
that the probate court had lacked jurisdiction because indispensable
58
1200401 and 1210153
parties had not been before the probate court. The property owner then
filed a motion for an award of litigation expenses and attorney fees. The
circuit court denied his request, asserting its lack of jurisdiction. On
appeal, we reversed the order denying the motion for expenses and
attorney fees, stating:
"Although the circuit court concluded that it lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction over the eminent-domain
proceeding, we hold that it nevertheless had jurisdiction over
Russell's motion for litigation expenses. Specifically, a court's
subject-matter jurisdiction 'is derived from the Alabama
Constitution and the Alabama Code.' Ex parte Seymour, 946
So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala. 2006). In determining a court's subject-
matter jurisdiction, 'we ask only whether the trial court had
the constitutional and statutory authority' to hear the case.
Seymour, 946 So. 2d at 538. Here, the plain language of § 18-
1A-232(a)[, Ala. Code 1975,] provides that, in an eminent-
domain action, '[t]he court shall award the defendant his
litigation expenses, in addition to any other amounts
authorized by law, if the action is wholly or partly dismissed
for any reason.' (Emphasis added.) Section 18-1A-232(a) thus
provides the circuit court the 'power' to award litigation
expenses in this case, even if the action itself was 'dismissed
for' lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See also generally
State Dep't of Human Res. v. Estate of Harris, 857 So. 2d 818,
820 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ('Alabama follows the "American
Rule" regarding the award of an attorney fee; that rule
provides for the recovery of an attorney fee if a fee is allowed
by statute, by the terms of a contract, or by a "special equity." '
(emphasis added)). Russell's motion seeking litigation
expenses was, therefore, unaffected by any lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction over the eminent-domain action and was
59
1200401 and 1210153
properly filed after the dismissal of that action. See Williams
v. Deerman, 724 So. 2d 18, 21 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (stating
that a landowner's claim for costs and fees in a condemnation
action that has been dismissed does 'not accrue, and the time
for ... assertion [of the claim] d[oes] not begin to run,' until the
action is dismissed)."
Russell, 51 So. 3d at 1028 (final emphasis added).
Like the statutes in Russell that allowed for the award of fees as a
collateral matter, the AUGPPA provides in § 26-2A-142 that the probate
court has jurisdiction to award reasonable compensation to a guardian
ad litem related to a guardianship and conservatorship proceeding.
Additionally, § 26-2A-3, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the principles of
law and equity supplement the provisions of the AUGPPA. Therefore,
under the "special equity" rule as set out by this Court in City of
Birmingham v. Horn, 810 So. 2d 667 (Ala. 2001), attorney fees may be
awarded when the efforts of an attorney render a public service or result
in a benefit to the general public. Indeed, the original guardian ad litem
appointed to represent Ms. Bashinsky in the temporary guardianship
and conservatorship proceedings was in fact paid for his services.
60
1200401 and 1210153
Conclusion
In an ideal world, there would be no controversy, everyone would
maintain mental capacity for their lifetime, no one would attempt to take
advantage of another person, and there would be little need for a Uniform
Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, much less a probate court
to ensure fairness. Unfortunately, we live in a less than ideal world. At
issue in this case was whether Ms. Bashinsky was competent and had
the capacity to manage her considerable financial estate. When the case
was commenced, no one knew how long she would survive or whether she
was sufficiently competent to continue to care for her financial security.
That is the point where the Probate Court of Jefferson County and the
rule of law came in.
For the reasons stated above, I submit that, insofar as it challenges
the December 11, 2020, order, Erskine's appeal is due to be dismissed as
untimely and that, insofar as Erskine's appeal challenges the January
22, 2021, order, that order should be affirmed on the merits.
I am quite sure that, in retrospect, the learned probate judge would
handle the emergency proceedings differently if given a second chance.
However, because that is not possible, in closing I seek to condense,
61
1200401 and 1210153
emphasize, and reflect upon the following selected statutory provisions
from those set out at length above, recognizing that the probate court was
clothed with its equity jurisdiction in the allocation and award of fees and
expenses.
First, § 26-2A-2, titled "Rule of construction; purposes," provides, in
pertinent part:
"(a) [The AUGPPA] shall be liberally construed and
applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.
"(b) The underlying purposes and policies of [the
AUGPPA] are to:
"....
"(2) Promote a speedy and efficient system
for managing and protecting the estates of
protected persons so that assets may be preserved
for application to the needs of the protected
persons and their dependents."
Second, § 26-2A-141 provides, in pertinent part:
"By accepting appointment, a conservator submits
personally to the jurisdiction of the court in any proceeding
relating to the estate which may be instituted by any
interested person. … "
And last, § 26-2A-142(a) provides, in pertinent part:
62
1200401 and 1210153
"(a) If not otherwise reasonably compensated for
services rendered, any … conservator[] or special conservator
appointed in a protective proceeding … is entitled to
reasonable compensation from the estate. ... "
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent in appeal no. 1200401.
63