Conservatorship of Rodriguez CA2/8

Filed 1/28/21 Conservatorship of Rodriguez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

Conservatorship of the Person B303879 and Estate of Olga C. Rodriguez. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County MARIA I. DURAN, as Super. Ct. No. 19STPB01141) Conservator, etc.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

OLGA C. RODRIGUEZ,

Conservatee and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Paul T. Suzuki, Judge. Appeal dismissed. StakerLaw Tax and Estate Planning and Kevin G. Staker for Petitioner and Appellant. Law Offices of Stephen R. McLeod and Stephen McLeod for Conservatee and Respondent. _____________________________

We dismiss as moot a conservator’s appeal from a probate court order, because the respondent conservatee died during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner and appellant Maria I. Duran was appointed conservator of the person and estate of her mother, Olga C. Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez, the conservatee, was 88 years old, diagnosed with dementia, unable to provide for her own care, and residing in an assisted living facility. Petitioner and the conservatee owned the conservatee’s principal residence as joint tenants. The conservatee’s interest in the home was her only asset. Petitioner sold the home, and the conservatee’s share of the proceeds amounted to about $244,000. Petitioner sought a substituted judgment authorizing her, as conservator, to gift the conservatee’s share of the proceeds to herself, at the rate of $9,336 per day. This, she says, would allow the conservatee to qualify for long term care benefits under Medi- Cal, without incurring any period of ineligibility. The court- appointed attorney for the conservatee agreed with petitioner’s proposal. The trial court did not agree with petitioner’s proposal, instead authorizing petitioner to gift $1,000 per month of the conservatee’s funds to herself. Petitioner appealed from the court’s order on January 24, 2020, and the conservatee died on July 28, 2020, before briefing began. In her opening brief, petitioner tells us that she seeks judicial review, “not for relief,” but because the conservatee was “exposed to harm” by the ruling and because the ruling “may affect others seeking court authority to do Medi-Cal planning on behalf of a conservatee.” Respondent, the court-appointed