Conservatorship of Powell CA3

Filed 11/12/15 Conservatorship of Powell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of C074452 ADRIENNE POWELL.

PAULA LETHERBLAIRE, as Conservator, etc., (Super. Ct. No. 34-2011- 00115088-PR-CP-FRC) Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

TODD R. ROBIE,

Respondent.

A court-appointed conservator appeals from an award of attorney fees to her former attorney who acted on behalf of the conservatorship. On appeal, the conservator claims that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to make the attorney fee award because an allegation of elder abuse had been made against the conservator. We conclude that the conservator’s appeal is timely, contrary to the respondent’s

1

contention; however, the conservator’s contention of error has no merit. We therefore affirm the order. BACKGROUND Appellant Paula Letherblaire petitioned the superior court to be appointed conservator of her mother, Adrienne Powell. While the petition was pending, someone alleged that Letherblaire had committed financial elder abuse against Powell. Letherblaire hired respondent attorney Todd R. Robie to represent her in pursuing the conservatorship. After the financial abuse allegations were resolved and the court had appointed Letherblaire as conservator, attorney Robie withdrew from representation. He filed a petition in the superior court requesting compensation from the conservatorship estate for his services. Letherblaire objected to the request. After a hearing, the superior court awarded attorney Robie $9,922.50 in attorney fees and $500 in costs. The attorney fee award included compensation for time expended to petition for attorney fees and respond to Letherblaire’s objections. The ruling was issued on May 23, 2013, and attorney Robie served notice of entry of the order on Letherblaire on May 30, 2013. On June 5, 2013, Letherblaire filed a motion to vacate the court’s attorney fee award, and the court denied the motion to vacate after a hearing on July 25, 2013. Letherblaire filed a notice of appeal from the order awarding attorney fees on August 2, 2013. DISCUSSION I Timeliness of Appeal Attorney Robie argues that the appeal is untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after he served notice on Letherblaire of the superior court’s order awarding attorney fees. The argument is without merit because Letherblaire filed her notice of