Conservatorship; Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC); Petition for reimbursement; Loan or gift; Ward’s legal capacity; Attorney fees; Motion for reconsideration; Remand for unresolved fact issue; In re Duke Estate

The court held that the probate court improperly denied reimbursement based on decedent-Mannausa’s capacity to retain counsel and the reasonableness of counsel’s fees, rather than whether appellant’s payment was a loan or gift and whether Mannausa could legally agree to a loan. Nonparty-Fiduciary Services was appointed conservator over Mannausa’s estate while she was a legally incapacitated individual under EPIC. Before its official involvement began, appellant wrote Mannausa’s attorney a $15,000 check marked “For Nancy Mannausa,” and Fiduciary Services later petitioned for approval to reimburse appellant. The probate court denied the petition, focusing on Mannausa’s capacity to retain the attorney and its view that the attorney had “gouged” her with “excessive” fees. On appeal, the court held that this was the wrong focus because the request was not from the attorney for fees, but from appellant for an “allegedly agreed-upon loan.” The court reasoned that “the appropriate inquiry did not concern [the attorney’s] relationship with Mannausa” but instead “concerned appellant’s relationship with Mannausa.” Because the record contained no evidence of an agreement and the probate court did not decide whether the payment was “a valid, agreed upon loan,” the court remanded for it to decide whether the check was a loan or a gift and, if a loan, whether Mannausa was legally capable of agreeing to it. Reversed and remanded.