Conservatorship of Anne S. - Case Brief

Conservatorship of Anne S. - Case Brief

Conservatorship of Anne S.

Case Number: B333052

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2025-07-10

Case Brief – Conservatorship of Anne S.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B333052
Disposition: The orders are affirmed. Anne is entitled to costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that a neighbor with no demonstrable property or fiduciary interest and no recognized “friend” relationship lacks standing to file a probate‑conservatorship petition under Probate Code § 1820, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for pursuing a legally frivolous petition.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that sharpens the boundary between legitimate advocacy and improper interference in probate matters, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial‑court ruling that a self‑styled “concerned citizen” could not petition for the conservatorship of Anne S. and that the petitioner, Marc B. Hankin, was properly sanctioned for filing a claim without statutory standing.

Procedural backdrop – The dispute began in July 2022 when attorneys G. Scott Sobel and Marc B. Hankin filed a joint petition seeking Sobel’s appointment as conservator of the person and estate of Anne S. Hankin, who described himself only as Anne’s “neighbor” from the next street, acted as Sobel’s counsel and later continued the petition on his own after Sobel withdrew on February 14 2023. Anne, represented by Vatche J. Zetjian, moved to dismiss the petition for lack of standing and later sought sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7. The trial court, on July 20 2023, granted both motions, finding Hankin had no standing under Probate Code § 1820 and that his continued pursuit of the petition was legally frivolous, imposing $5,577 in sanctions. Hankin appealed both orders.

Factual matrix – The record shows Hankin’s only connection to Anne was a single, brief conversation while walking in their neighborhood. He offered no evidence of a financial or fiduciary interest, nor of a relationship that rose to the level of “friend” as ordinarily understood. By contrast, Anne’s longtime health‑care agent, Barbara Lerer, and her stepson, Jonathan S., had documented histories with Anne and were parties to a settlement agreement that resolved the underlying conservatorship dispute.

Legal issues – The appellate court addressed two questions: (1) whether Hankin satisfied the standing requirements of Probate Code § 1820(a), which limits petitioners to the proposed conservatee, a spouse, domestic partner, relative, or “interested” person or agency; and (2) whether the trial court’s sanction award was an abuse of discretion under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7.

Reasoning on standing – The court applied the plain‑text rule, emphasizing that “interested person” is defined in Probate Code § 48 as a party with a property right, claim, or fiduciary interest in the estate. The appellate panel reiterated that the term does not extend to casual acquaintances or neighbors lacking a pecuniary stake. Citing Estate of Sobol (225 Cal.App.4th 771) and Estate of Prindle (173 Cal.App.4th 119), the court stressed that the legislature’s intent is to prevent “persons with no interest from delaying the settlement of the estate.”

Hankin’s argument that “friend” status should confer standing was rejected. The court noted that the Probate Code provides no definition of “friend,” so ordinary dictionary meanings apply. Under both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam‑Webster, “friend” implies a mutual, ongoing relationship of trust—something the record did not support. Anne herself testified she did not know Hankin, reinforcing the court’s conclusion that he was a stranger, not a friend.

The court also dismissed Hankin’s broader policy argument that any “independent voice” should be allowed to petition, observing that if the legislature intended such an expansive class, it would have used the phrase “any person,” which it expressly did not.

Sanctions analysis – The appellate court reviewed the sanction award for abuse of discretion. Under Peake v. Underwood (227 Cal.App.4th 428), sanctions are appropriate when a pleading is “indisputably without merit” and filed for an improper purpose. The trial court found Hankin’s petition legally frivolous because it rested on a standing theory unsupported by any statutory or case authority. The appellate panel agreed, noting that Hankin offered no credible legal basis and had been warned during the statutory safe‑harbor period that his arguments lacked merit. Consequently, the $5,577 sanction was deemed reasonable and within the trial court’s discretion.

Conclusion and impact – By affirming the trial court’s orders, the Court of Appeal reinforces a narrow, text‑based construction of standing under Probate Code § 1820. The decision sends a clear message to “concerned citizens” and amateur litigants that proximity or altruistic motives do not substitute for the statutory categories of interested parties. Moreover, the sanction ruling underscores the courts’ willingness to penalize frivolous conservatorship petitions, deterring misuse of the probate system to harass or delay legitimate estate administration.

Unresolved questions remain about the precise contours of “interested person” when the petitioner’s interest is non‑pecuniary but arguably protective—such as a professional elder‑law advocate without a fiduciary role. Future cases may need to balance the legislature’s protective intent for vulnerable adults against the risk of opening the conservatorship process to opportunistic or vexatious filings.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code § 1820 – Petition for appointment of a conservator; standing requirements.
  • Probate Code § 48 – Definition of “interested person.”
  • Probate Code §§ 1424, 1401 – Additional categories of interested persons (governmental entities, public officers).
  • Probate Code § 1821(c) – Requirements for professional conservators as petitioners.
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7 – Sanctions for frivolous or improper pleadings.
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10 – Standard for judgment on the pleadings/demurrer.
  • Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 – Appeal of judgment on the pleadings.

Key Cases

  • Conservatorship of John L. (48 Cal.4th 131) – Standing of interested persons under § 1820.
  • Estate of Sobol (225 Cal.App.4th 771) – Definition of “interested person” in probate.
  • Estate of Prindle (173 Cal.App.4th 119) – Pecuniary interest requirement.
  • Peake v. Underwood (227 Cal.App.4th 428) – Standards for imposing sanctions under § 128.7.
  • People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation (59 Cal.4th 772) – De novo review of judgment on the pleadings.
  • In re N.R. (15 Cal.5th 520) – Plain‑meaning approach to statutory construction.

These authorities collectively shape the appellate court’s analysis and provide a framework for practitioners navigating conservatorship petitions and the attendant risk of sanctions.

Last updated September 05, 2025.