Conservatorship of Gums CA1/3

Filed 8/4/14 Conservatorship of Gums CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Conservatorship of the Person of THELMA GUMS.

RANDY MORRIS, Alameda County Public Guardian, Petitioner and Respondent. A139376 v. (Alameda County KAREN GUMS, Super. Ct. No. HP10508186) Objector and Appellant; DEBORAH GUMS et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Karen Gums appeals from an order removing her as conservator of the person of her mother, Thelma. She argues the trial court erred when it consolidated matters pertaining to her mother and subsequently suspended and removed her as conservator without substantial evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND Thelma and Louis Gums have owned an Oakland home jointly since 1957 and have resided there for over 50 years, raising three daughters: Karen, Denise, and Deborah

1

Gums. In 2009, Thelma1 suffered various health problems, and her doctors determined she was unable to provide for her own food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs. As a result, Thelma moved from her Oakland home in January of that year to the Joy of Living Residential Healthcare Facility. In April 2010, due to her condition, Thelma’s husband Louis and daughter Karen petitioned the Superior Court to become co-conservators of her person. In October 2010, the Alameda County Superior Court appointed Karen and Louis as such co-conservators. In early 2011, Louis resigned as co-conservator due to his own debilitating health and nominated Karen to be Thelma’s sole conservator. At the time, Thelma and Louis resided in separate residential care facilities while Karen lived at her parents’ Oakland home. Consequently, the Alameda County Superior Court appointed Karen sole conservator of her mother’s person in March 2011. Two months after she became sole conservator, Karen signed a gift deed on behalf of both parents that transferred her parents’ right, title, and interest in the family home to herself. In November 2011, Karen executed a duplicate gift deed as “attorney-in-fact” on behalf of each parent. Each of the deeds contained an error in the address of the real property, so Karen executed a third gift deed the following month, again signing as “attorney-in-fact” for each parent. Karen recorded no power of attorney with the deed, but claimed that she acted according to her mother’s wishes. Thelma later refuted this claim, and stated she never would have gifted her residential property to one daughter to the exclusion of her two others. Denise and Deborah Gums petitioned the probate court after discovering Karen had transferred the family residence solely to herself. The sisters alleged that Karen violated her fiduciary duties, and requested an order that Karen prove she had a power of attorney authorizing the execution of the gift deeds on behalf of Thelma and Louis Gums. Prior to the requested hearing, the court on its own motion put Karen’s status as conservator on calendar to be considered along with the power of attorney matter. At the