state, office of public advocacy, office of elder fraud & assistance v. estate of jean r., alaska...

7/25/2019 State, Office of Public Advocacy, Office of Elder Fraud & Assistance v. Estate of Jean R., Alaska (2016)

1/26

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

STATEOFALASKA,OFFICEOFPUBLICADVOCACY,OFFICEOFELDERFRAUD&ASSISTANCE,

AppellantandCross-Appellee,

v.

ESTATEOFJEANR.,Deceased,andSIDNEYF.,

AppelleesandCross-Appellants

.

) ) ) ))))

))) ) ) ) ) )

SupremeCourtNos.S-15326/15356

SuperiorCourtNo.1JU-12-00179PR

O P I N I O N

No.7098April22,2016

AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,FirstJudicialDistrict,Juneau,PhilipM.Pallenberg,Judge.

Appearances: RuthBotsteinandDarioBorghesan,AssistantAttorneysGeneral,Anchorage,andMichaelC.Geraghty,Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.RobertS.Spitzfaden,Gruening&Spitzfaden,APC,Juneau,for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Deborah A. Holbrook,Juneau,Co-CounselforAppellee/Cross-AppellantSidneyF.

Before:Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,andBolger,Justices.

FABE,ChiefJustice.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/26

I. INTRODUCTION

TheStateOfficeofPublicAdvocacy(OPA)filedapetitionforanexparte

protectiveorderonbehalfofanelderlywomanagainstheradultdaughterandcaregiver,

afterreceivingallegationsoffinancialabusemadebytheelderlywomansotherfamily

members. Thesuperiorcourtfoundthoseallegationstobeunfoundedanddeniedthe

protective order. The elderly womans other daughter had previously initiated a

conservatorshipproceeding,inwhichtheStatethenparticipatedinsupportofthe

conservatorship after the denial of the protective order. Ultimately the

conservatorshipcasewassettledthroughmediation.Theelderlywomansestateandthe

caregiverdaughtersoughtattorneysfeesagainsttheStateinconnectionwithboththe

protectiveorderandconservatorshipproceedings.

Thesuperiorcourtawardedfullreasonablefeesarisingfromthedenialof

theprotectiveorder,findingthatOPAsprotectiveorderpetitionwasbroughtwithout

justcause,underthefee-shiftingprovisionofAS13.26.131(d). Thesuperiorcourt

declined to award attorneys fees arising from the proceeding to establish a

conservatorshipbecausetheStatehadnotinitiatedtheconservatorshipproceedingas

requiredforfeesunderAS13.26.131(d). TheStateappealsthefirstaward,andthe

caregiverdaughterandtheestateofthewoman,whoisnowdeceased,cross-appealthe

denialofthesecondaward.

ButweconcludethatAS13.26.131doesnotapplytoelderfraudprotective

orderproceedings;nordoesAlaskaCivilRule82apply. Instead,AS44.21.415setsup

acost-recoverymechanismthatdoesnotallowprivatepartiestorecoverattorneysfees

againsttheStateinsuchproceedings.Sowevacatethesuperiorcourtsfeeawardintheelderfraudprotectiveorderproceeding. AndbecausetheStatedidnotinitiatethe

conservatorshipproceedinghere,noattorneysfeesareavailableagainsttheStateinthat

-2- 7098


3/26

proceeding. Wethereforeaffirmthesuperiorcourtsdenialoffeesinconnectionwith

theconservatorshipproceeding.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

Whenthiscasefirstarosein2012,92-year-oldJeanR.1

livedinJuneau

withher55-year-olddaughterSidneyF.,whoservedashercaregiver. Sidneyhad

movedfromAnchoragetoJuneauin2004tocareforhermotherandfather. In2009her

parentsrequestedthatSidneyquitherjobtoprovidefull-timecare,andSidneydidsoin

April2010. LaterthatyearJeanwasdiagnosedwithdementia,andinOctober2010

Jeanshusband(Sidneysfather)died. Sidneycontinuedtolivewithhermotherfull

time,providingcareandholdingapowerofattorneyauthorizinghertomanageallof

Jeanspersonalaffairs. ThiscasearisesoutofallegationsaboutSidneysexpenditures

raisedbytwoofJeansotherchildren,ShelleyandGeoffrey,wholivedoutsideof

Alaska.

InJuly2012Shelley petitionedtoestablisha conservatorship forher

mother,allegingthat Sidneywaswastinganddissipating Jeansmoney andassets

withoutbenefittoJean,andthatSidneywasfinanciallyexploitingJean.Shelleysought

athirdpartytoserveasafullguardianwiththepowersofaconservatortoprotectthe

rightsandwell-beingof[Jean]. ThroughthisactiontheOfficeofElderFraudand

Assistance,asectionofOPA,learnedofShelleysallegationsaboutSidneysconduct.

InAugust2012OPAfiledanexpartepetitionforanelderfraudprotective

orderunderAS13.26.207-.208toprotectJeanfromallegedfinancialabusebySidney.

Prior tofilingthepetition,OPAexaminedJeansbank recordsandother financial

documents,whichlargelycorrelatedwiththeallegationsmadebyShelley. OPAalso

Weuseinitialsinlieuofthepartieslastnamestoprotectthefamilysprivacy.

-3- 7098

1


4/26

interviewedShelleyandGeoffrey.ButOPAevidentlydidnotinterviewSidneyorJean,

eventhoughitknewthattheywerebothalreadyawareoftheallegationsoffraud

becausesimilarallegationshadbeenmadeinShelleysconservatorshippetition.

Inits petition OPAasserted that ownershipofJeans home hadbeen

transferredtoSidney;thatJeansbankaccountshadbeenoverdrawnby$2,623between

JanuaryandAugustof2012;thatlargeexpenditureshadbeenmadeforthesolebenefit

ofSidney,includingairlineticketstoSeattleandMinnesota,suppliesusedtorepaira

trailerforSidneysboyfriend,andveterinarianbillsforSidneyspet;andthatSidneyhad

generatedinordinatelyhighgrocerybills. OPAestimatedthevalueatrisktobe

$54,000 per year and declared therisk tobeimmediate orurgent,citing recent

overdraftsandchecksmadeouttoSidneyfromJeansbankaccounttotaling$1,500.

OPArequestedthatthecourtlimitSidneyspowersofattorneytomedicaldecisions;that

housing decisions be shared between Sidney, Shelley, and Geoffrey; and that a

temporary six-monthconservatorshipbeestablished to handleall financialmatters

followingtheinitial20-dayexparteprotectiveperiod.

JeanreceivedacopyofOPAsprotectiveorderpetitionthedayafteritwas

filed,andshequicklyfiledabriefopposingthepetition. 2 Sheexplainedthatthehome

hadbeendeededtoSidneyinordertohelpsecureadditionalgovernmentassistancefor

Jeaninheroldage. Shealsodispute[d]thefactualbasisoftheallegationsrelatingto

theairplanetickets,trailerrepair,andveterinarianbills. Shemaintainedthatshewas

welltakencareofandthatnofinancialabusehadtakenplace.

Thesuperiorcourtdeniedtheexpartepetitionthreedaysafteritwasfiled.

Thecourtbrieflyexplainedthatitreachedthisdecisionbecauseitd[id]notfindthat

ItdoesnotappearfromtherecordthatSidney,therespondent,receivedacopyoftheexpartepetitionorfiledaresponsetoit.

-4- 7098

2


5/26

thereha[d]beenashowingofprobablecausedemonstratingthatanexparteorderwas

necessarytopreventfraudbySidneyagainstJean.Butthesuperiorcourtindicatedthat

itwouldconvertOPAsexpartepetitionintoapetitionforasix-monthprotectiveorder

underAS13.26.208.3 SoOPAcontinuedtoproceedwiththispetitionforasix-month

protectiveorder,evenafterthecourtsdenialoftheexpartepetition.

ThesuperiorcourtconsolidatedOPAsongoingprotectiveorderpetition

andtheearlierconservatorshippetitionfiledbyShelley,anditscheduledanevidentiary

hearinginSeptember2012.Atthathearing,thecourtheardtestimonythatthehomewas

transferredonadviceofcounsel;thattheallegedflighttoMinnesotabySidneyandher

boyfriendwasinfactatriptoJuneauthatShelleytooktohelpcareforJean;thatSidney

hadreimbursedmoneytohermothersaccountforaflightshehadtakentoSeattleto

obtainmedicaltreatment;andthatthemoneyspentonSidneysboyfriendstrailerwas

actuallycompensationinexchangeforre-roofingandpaintingJeanshouse. Thecourt

alsoheardtestimonyfromSidneyexplainingthatthemoneyshespentandthechecksshe

drewfromJeansaccountwerecompensationunderanagreementreachedbetween

SidneyandherparentsbeforeSidneyquitherjobandbecametheirfull-timecaregiver.

3 Althoughthesuperiorcourtstatedthatitwouldconsiderwhethertoissuea6-monthorderunderAS13.26.209,weassumeitintendedtorefertoatemporary

protectiveorderasdefinedunderAS13.26.208. WenotethatAS13.26.209dealswithmodifications to existing protective orders, while AS 13.26.208 provides for theconversionofa20-dayexparteprotectiveorderintoasix-monthtemporaryprotective

order. AS13.26.208provides,inpart: Onapplicationfiledwiththecourtbeforetheexpirationofa20-dayexparteprotectiveorderissuedunderAS13.26.207,thecourtshallscheduleahearingonwhethertoconverttheprotectiveordertoatemporaryordereffectiveforuptosixmonths. BriefingfromOPA,whichfocusesonAS13.26.207.208,confirmsthatthesewere theprovisionsunderwhichOPAsoughtaprotectiveorderhere.

-5- 7098


6/26

Attheendofthehearing,thesuperiorcourtenteredanoralorderdenying

OPAs petition for anelderfraudprotectiveorder. The court creditedJeans and

SidneysexplanationsfortheexpendituresOPAhadchallenged,explainingthatitfound

JeansandSidneys testimonymorecrediblethan thetestimonyfromJeansother

children and OPAs staff. The superior court thus found that OPA had failed to

demonstratefraudbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceandhadnotmadeanyshowing

thatthere[had]beenfraudinthiscase.Thecourtallowedthatamoreformalized

compensationarrangementmighthavebeenbetterbutnotedthatitdidnotfindthe

currentarrangementtobeexploitation,andthatitwashardtounderstandhowonegets

to[the]placewhereitisfelttobeexploitation. Thesuperiorcourtthereforedenied

OPAspetitionforanelderfraudprotectiveorder.Thecourtallowedlitigationofthe

conservatorshipissuetocontinue,however.

Afterthesuperiorcourtsruling,Sidneyfiledamotionseekinganaward

of$14,025 for attorneys feesand costsagainstOPA. Jeanmoved for a separate

attorneysfeesawardagainstOPAfor$8,607.75. Sidneyallegedthatafeeawardwas

justifiedunderAlaskaCivilRule82,thestandardfee-shiftingschemeforcivilcases;

AS13.26.131,thefee-shiftingstatuteforguardianshipandconservatorshipcases;or

AS13.26.353(c),whichprovidesa causeofactionforfailuretohonora powerof

attorney. JeanassertedthatAS13.26.131wasnotapplicablebutthatanawardwas

justifiedunderRule82orAS13.26.353(c). OPAopposedthemotions,denyingthatit

hadfileditspetitionforaprotectiveorderinbadfaithorwithoutjustcause.

Meanwhile,thepartiescontinuedtolitigatetheconservatorshippetitionthat

Shelleyhadfiled.OPA,participatinginthisproceedingasaninterestedparty,soughtadditionaldiscoveryandopposedSidneyandJeansmotionforsummaryjudgment. In

Decemberthepartiessettledtheremainingissuesfromtheconservatorshippetition

throughtheAdultGuardianshipMediationProgram. Thepartiesagreedtodismissthe

-6- 7098


7/26

conservatorshippetitionwithprejudiceandagreedtosupportJeanswishtoremainin

herJuneauhomeuntilherdeath.Theyestablishedaformalcompensationschemefor

Sidney,andSidneyagreedtomakemonthlyreportstoShelleyandGeoffreyabouther

expendituresascaregiver.SidneyalsoagreedtoputthehomeupforsaleuponJeans

death. Finally,SidneyandJeanagreednottopursueanattorneysfeeawardagainst

ShelleyorGeoffrey.SidneyandJeanexplicitlyreservedtheirrighttoseekattorneys

feesfromOPA.

Followingthesettlementoftheconservatorshipaction,Jeanagainfileda

motionforafeeawardagainstOPA. ShearguedthatOPAscontinuedlitigationofthe

conservatorshipproceedingwasinbadfaith,vexatious,frivolous,andwithoutjust

cause,therebyjustifyingafeeaward. Sheargued thatallfactualissueshadbeen

resolved by the denial of the protective order and that continuing to litigate the

conservatorship petition violated principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

SidneymovedtojoinandsupplementJeansmotionshortlythereafter.Sheassertedthat

thesumofhertotalincurredfeeshadrisento$36,195andreiteratedthatCivilRule82,

AS13.26.131(d)andAS13.26.353(c)justifiedafeeaward.InresponseOPAargued

thatnothingintheProbateRules,Title13,orapplicablecaselaw...support[sthe]

viewthatinterestedpartiesaresubjecttoattorneyfeesunderRule82andarguedthat

AS13.26.353(c)didnotapply.

ThesuperiorcourtawardedfullreasonablefeesagainstOPAintheelder

fraudprotectiveorderproceeding,findingthatOPAselderfraudpetitionwasbrought

without justcausebecauseanobjectiveobserverwhomadereasonableinquirieswould

[not]concludethattherewasjustcauseforbelievingthattherewasfraudorfinancialexploitation. Infactthesuperiorcourtfoundthat,farfromcommittingfraud,Sidney

hadbeenprovidinglovingcareforhermotherafterquittingherjobandmovinghome

atherparentsrequest. Itwasevidentthattheproceedingsarisingfromtheallegations

-7- 7098


8/26

offraudhadcostthefamilysignificanttimeandexpense,whichthesuperiorcourt

soughttorectifywiththisawardofattorneysfees.

Intheconservatorshipproceeding,however,thesuperiorcourtdeclinedto

awardattorneysfees. Therethesuperiorcourtfoundthatbycontinuingtolitigatethe

conservatorshipproceedingfiledbythefamilymembers,OPAhadnotinitiateda

proceedingthatwasmalicious,frivolous,orwithoutjustcauseasrequiredforafee

awardunderAS13.26.131(d).OPAappealsthefeeawardintheprotectiveorderaction,

whileSidneyandJean(nowJeansestate)cross-appealthedenialoffeesrelatedtothe

conservatorshipaction.

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

Although we review the reasonableness of fee awards for abuse of

discretion,4weindependentlyreviewwhetherthetrialcourtproperlyappliedthelaw

whenawardingattorneysfees.5 Whensuchaninquiryrestsonaquestionofstatutory

interpretation,weapplyourindependentjudgmentininterpretingthestatute. 6 Indoing

so,welooktothemeaningofthelanguage,thelegislativehistory,andthepurposeof

thestatuteandadopttheruleoflawthatismostpersuasiveinlightofprecedent,reason,

andpolicy.7

4 Foster v. Profl Guardian Servs. Corp.,258P.3d102,107(Alaska2011)(citingDeNardo v. Cutler,167P.3d674,677-78(Alaska2007)).

5 Baker v. Ryan Air, Inc., 345 P.3d 101, 106 (Alaska 2015) (quotingDeNardo,167P.3dat677).

6 Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage,333P.3d5,11(Alaska2014)

(citingPouzanova v. Morton,327P.3d865,867(Alaska2014))(applyingthisstandardtoaquestionofstatutoryinterpretationonanissuethatisnormallyreviewedforabuseofdiscretion).

7 In re Protective Proceedings of Vernon H.,332P.3d565,572(Alaska(continued...)

-8- 7098


9/26

IV. DISCUSSION

A. It Was Error To Award Attorneys Fees In The Elder Fraud

ProceedingBecauseNeitherAS13.26.131NorCivilRule82Applies.

Alaska Statute13.26.131(d) provides for fee shifting in guardianship

proceedingsifthecourtfindsthattheproceedingwasmalicious,frivolous,orwithout

justcause. Thesuperiorcourtappliedthisfee-shiftingprovisiontotheelderfraud

protectiveproceedingatissuehere,interpretingthetextofthestatuteassuggestingthat

itshouldapply. OurdecisioninIn re Vernon H.,whichwasdecidedafterthesuperior

courtsorderinthiscase,explainedthatAS13.26.131(d)appliestoconservatorship

proceedingsaswellasguardianshipproceedingsandthatitdisplacesCivilRule82in

bothtypesofproceedings.8 Butwehavenotyetaddressedthequestionwhetherour

holdinginVernon H.alsoencompasseselderfraudprotectiveorderproceedings. We

conclude that elder fraud protective order proceedings are subject to a separate

cost-recoveryschemethatwasestablishedwiththecreationoftheOfficeofElderFraud

andAssistance,theofficethatprosecuteselderfraudcasesandseeksprotectiveorders

onbehalf ofvulnerableelders. Accordingly, these proceedingsare not subject to

AS13.26.131orCivilRule82.1. Thefee-shiftingprovisionofAS13.26.131(d)doesnotapplyto

elderfraudprotectiveorderproceedings.

Title13,Chapter26oftheAlaskaStatutessetsupastatutoryregimefor

protectiveproceedings,includingguardianship,conservatorship,andotherprotective

ordercases. Thesetofprovisionsunderwhich OPAfileditselderfraudpetition,

AS13.26.207-.209,wasaddedtothischapterin2012inanefforttoaddressthegrowing

7(...continued)2014)(quotingEnders v. Parker,66P.3d11,13-14(Alaska2003)).

8 Id. at577.

-9- 7098


10/26

problemoffraudagainsteldersinAlaska.9Theseprovisionsdonotcontaintheirown

fee-shiftingscheme;insteadtheyrelyonfee-shiftingprovisionscodifiedelsewherein

thestatutoryregime.

Thecost-allocationstatuteappliedbythesuperiorcourt,AS13.26.131,

generallyallocatescostsinaguardianshiporconservatorshipproceedingbetweenthe

petitioner,therespondent,andtheState:

(a) Subjectto(d)ofthissection,the[S]tateshallbearthecosts of the visitor and expert appointed underAS13.26.106(c).

(b) Subjectto(c)and(d)ofthissection,therespondentshall bear the costs of the attorney appointed underAS 13.26.106(b), of the expert appointed underAS13.26.109(d),oftheguardianadlitemappointedunderAS 13.26.025,andofothercourtand guardianshipcostsincurredunderthischapter.

(c) The[S]tateshallpayallorpartofthecostsdescribedin(b)ofthissectionifthecourtfindsthatthepaymentisnecessarytopreventtherespondentfromsufferingfinancialhardshiporfrombecomingdependentuponagovernmentagencyoraprivatepersonoragency.

ThefinalsectionofAS13.26.131thenprovidesforcost-shiftingincertainlimited

circumstances:

(d) Thecourtmayrequirethepetitionertopayallorsomeofthecostsdescribedin(a)and(b)ofthissectionifthecourtfinds that the petitioner initiated a proceeding under thischapterthatwasmalicious,frivolous,orwithoutjustcause.

9 Ch.71,10,SLA2012;see Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonSenateBill(S.B.)86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:40-1:46(Feb.21,2011)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.)(describingtheproblemofelderfraudinAlaskaasthemotivationforthebill).

-10- 7098


11/26

AlaskaStatute13.26.131fallswithinchapter13.26,whichalsoincludestheprotective

orderprovisionsofAS13.26.207-.209underwhichOPAfiledtheelderfraudprotective

orderin thiscase. AndthetextofAS13.26.131(d)suggeststhatthiscost-shifting

provisionappliestoallproceedingsunderthischapter. Bythislogic,thesuperior

court concluded that the cost-shifting provision applied to the protective order

proceedinghere. Jeansestateurgesustoadoptthisreasoningaswell. Butalthoughit

isunderstandablethatthesuperiorcourtfocusedontheplaintextofthisprovision,our

analysisdoesnotendthere.

Wheninterpretinga statute,webegin with the plainmeaningofthe

statutorytext.10 Thenweapplyaslidingscaleapproach,where[t]heplainerthe

statutorylanguageis,themoreconvincingtheevidenceofcontrarylegislativepurpose

orintentmustbeinorderforustoconcludethatanalternativeinterpretationofthe

statuteismoreappropriate. 11 Here,althoughthemeaningofthephraseunderthis

chapter at first appearsplain, the textof the other sectionswithinAS13.26.131

convincesusthatthelegislaturecouldnothaveintendedforthatstatutetoapplyinelder

fraudproceedings.Specifically,subsections(a)-(c)ofthestatuteallocatecostsbetween

theStateandtherespondent,butthedefinitionofrespondentintheelderfraudcontext

isentirelydifferentfromthedefinitionintheguardianshiporconservatorshipcontext.

The guardianship statutes define respondent as the person who allegedly needs

10

Hendricks-Pearce v. State, Dept of Corr.,323P.3d30,35(Alaska2014)(citingWard v. State, Dept of Pub. Safety,288P.3d94,98(Alaska2012)).

11 State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn v. Carlson,270P.3d755,762(Alaska2012),as modified on rehg (Apr.13,2012)(quoting Govt Emps. Ins. Co. v.Graham-Gonzalez,107P.3d279,284(Alaska2005)).

-11- 7098


12/26

protection.12 Butthepersonwhoallegedlyneedsprotectionisnotmentionedasaparty

inanelderfraudprotectiveorderproceeding. Instead,theelderfraudprotectiveorder

statutereferstotherespondentasthepersonwhoisaccusedofcommittingthefraud. 13

Itwouldmakelittlesenseforthecost-allocationprovisionsofAS13.26.131toapply

equally toboth sets ofrespondents,because the parties are in entirely different

positionswithrespecttotheproceedings.

Ifwetrytoharmonizethisconflictbyapplyingauniformdefinitionof

respondentunderAS13.26.131,itcouldleadtoabsurdresults. Whathappensifwe

trytoapplytheelderfraudstatutesdefinitionofrespondenttotheguardianshipcost

statute? Undersubsection(b),theaccusedisthenrequiredtopaythecostsofappointed

counsel,arespondentsexpert,aguardianadlitem,andallothercourtandguardianship

costsincurredunderthischapter.14 Theaccusedrespondentmustpaythesecosts,

whetherinnocentorguilty,unlessthecostsareshiftedtothepetitionerundertherare

circumstancesdescribedinsubsection(d).15 Ontheotherhand,undersubsection(c)the

Statemayberequiredtopayanyofthesecostsifsuchanorderisnecessarytoprevent

the[accused] fromsufferingfinancialhardshiporotherwisebecomingdependent.Such

12 AS13.26.005(11).

13 See AS13.26.207(a)(Ifthecourtfindsthatthe[protectiveorder]petition

establishesprobablecausethattherespondentisfinanciallydefraudingthepetitioner...thecourtshall...issueaprotectiveorder.).

14 AS13.26.131(b).

15 See AS13.26.131(d).

-12- 7098


13/26

anoutcomeisentirelyinconsistentwiththeelderfraudstatutesgoalofprotectingthe

financialwell-beingoffraudvictims.16

Different problems would arise if we tried to apply the definition of

respondentfromtheguardianshipcoststatute. Underthisalternative,therespondent

wouldbethepersonwhoallegedlyneedsprotection,thatis,thevulnerableadultina

protectiveorderproceeding.17 UnderAS13.26.131,thevulnerableadultwouldthenbe

responsibleforpayingthecostsofappointedcounsel,arespondentsexpert,aguardian

adlitem,andallothercourtandguardianshipcostsincurredunderthischapter,even

thoughthevulnerableadultisnottypicallyanamedpartyinanelderfraudproceeding. 18

Ifthevulnerableadultcannotaffordtopaythesecosts,thentheStatewouldpay,even

ifitisnotpartytotheproceeding.19 Thepetitionercouldberequiredtopayonlyifthe

filingwasmalicious,frivolous,orwithoutjustcause. 20 Inthisscenario,theaccused

wouldneverberequiredtopayanycosts,evenifheorshewerefoundguiltyoffraud.

Ultimatelybothoftheseinterpretationscouldleadtoabsurdresultsthat

wouldconflictwiththepurposeofelderfraudproceedings,whichistoprotectelders

againstfinancialabuse.21 Asaruleofstatutoryinterpretation,wedisfavorstatutory

16 AS13.26.131(c).

17 AS13.26.005(11).

18 AS13.26.131(b).

19 AS13.26.131(c).

20 AS13.26.131(d).

21 Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:401:46(Feb.21,2011)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.).

-13- 7098


14/26

constructionsthat reachabsurdresults.22 Moreover,AlaskaProbateRule1(e)mandates

thatanyprocedureappliedtoprobateproceedingsincludingtheelderfraudprotective

ordersatissuehere23maynot...interferewiththeuniquecharacterandpurposeof

probateproceedings.24 ThusweconcludethatAS13.26.131,whenreadasawhole,

cannotapplytoelderfraudprotectiveorderproceedings.

ThisconclusionisconfirmedbythetitleofAS13.26.131,whichcanbe

aninterpretivetool...wherelegislativemeaningisleftindoubt.25 Theprovisionis

titledCostsinguardianshipproceedings,asthesuperiorcourtnoted,andindeedmost

of the costs described in subsections (a) and (b) are unique to guardianship and

conservatorshipproceedings.26 Itmakessense forAS13.26.131 toapply toguardianship

and conservatorship proceedings but not to elder fraud cases. Guardianship and

conservatorshipproceedingsarecloselyrelated:A guardianshipcoversallaspectsof the

protectedpersonslegalandfinancialrights,anda conservatorshipinvolvessimilar

powersbutdealsonlywithfinancialprotection. Theyareoftendescribedtogetherin

statutoryprovisionsandtheprobaterules.27 Elderfraudproceedings,ontheotherhand,

22 See Premera Blue Cross v. State, Dept of Commerce, Cmty. &Econ. Dev.,

Div. of Ins.,171P.3d1110,1120(Alaska2007).

23 See AlaskaR.Prob.P.1(b)(governingallproceedingswithinTitle13oftheAlaskaStatutes).

24 AlaskaR.Prob.P.1(e).

25 Tweedy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Bd. of Adjustment & Appeals,332P.3d12,18(Alaska2014)(citingBoyd v. State,210P.3d1229,1232(Alaska2009)).

26 See In re Protective Proceedings of Vernon H.,332P.3d565,577(Alaska2014)(concludingthatAS13.26.131(d)appliesinconservatorshipcases).

27 See, e.g.,AS13.26.380(c)(1)(Thepublicguardianshall...establishand(continued...)

-14- 7098


15/26

aremoreprosecutorialinnatureandaretargetedattheperpetratorofthefraudrather

thantheprotectedperson.28 Wethereforeconcludethat,whileAS13.26.131appliesto

guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, it does not apply to elder fraud

proceedings.

2. AlaskaStatute44.21.415createsaspecificcost-recovery scheme

forelderfraudproceedings,whichdisplacesCivilRule82.

Tounderstandhowthelegislatureintendedtoallocatecostsinelderfraud

proceedings,welooktothetextandhistoryofthestatutethatcreatedtheOfficeofElder

FraudandAssistance(theOffice). The2006enactmentofAS44.21.415createdthe

OfficeasadivisionofOPAtoinvestigateandprosecuteelderfraudcases.29 Thestatute

containsacost-recoveryprovisionallowingtheOfficetocollectitslitigationcostsand

feesfromthedefendant(thepersonaccusedoffraud)orfromtheprotectedelderwhen

theOfficeprevailsonbehalfoftheelder:

Subject to the discretion of the court and standardsestablishedinregulation...andtakingintoconsiderationthefinancialconditionofthepartiestoacivilsuitbroughtunderthissection,theofficeofpublicadvocacymayseekrecoveryofall orpartoflitigation costsand feesfromanyparty,

includingcostsincurredduringtheinvestigationofthecase,

27(...continued)maintainrelationshipswithgovernmental,public,andprivateagencies,institutions,andorganizationstoassurethemosteffectiveguardianshiporconservatorshipprogramfor

each ward and protected person); Alaska R. Prob. P. 14(e) (Guardianship andconservatorshipproceedingsmaybecombined.).

28 See AS13.26.207.

29 Ch.64,2,SLA2006.

-15- 7098


16/26

whentheofficeofpublicadvocacyisfoundtobeaprevailingpartyaftertrialorsettlementnegotiation.[30]

ThissectionalsoprovidesthattheOfficemustgenerallyenterintoafeeagreementwith

aclient,31 whoisdefinedtobetheelderinneedofprotection.32 Thestatutedoesnot

provideforanyawardofattorneysfeesagainst OPA.33

Although not determinative of the legislatures intent, the regulation

implementing this statute further supports our interpretation of this cost-recovery

scheme. Theregulationclarifiesthatiftheclientprevails,the[Office]willfirstseek

recoveryof[its]attorneysfeefromthedefendantandthen,ifthedefendantisunable

tosatisfytheawardofthe[Offices]attorneysfee,the[Office]willnextseekrecovery

fromtheclient[theprotectedelder].34 Likethestatuteitself,theregulationcontainsno

provisionforafeeawardagainsttheOfficeeveniftheOfficedoesnotprevailinthe

case.35

Thus, this statutesets upa cost-recovery scheme that allows OPA to

recoveritscostsfirstfromtheperpetratorofthefraudandthenfrom theprotectedperson

who benefited from the elder fraud proceeding. And although the legislature

contemplatedthattheOfficemightnotalwaysprevailintheelderfraudproceedingsit

30 AS44.21.415(e).

31 Id.

32 2AlaskaAdministrativeCode(AAC)60.390.

33 AS44.21.415(e).

34

2AAC60.310(1).

TheregulationalsosuggeststhatRule82mightapplyin addition to thecost-recoveryschemedescribedinAS44.21.415(e),butweconcludethatthelegislatureintendedforthisstatutorycost-recoveryschemetodisplaceRule82,asdiscussedfurtherbelow. See infrapp.20-23.

35 2AAC60.310(2).

-16- 7098


17/26

initiated,36 the legislature nonetheless chose not to allow other parties to recover

attorneysfeesfromtheOffice. Thisoutcomeisconsistentwiththelegislativehistory

surroundingthepassageofAS44.21.415,whichexpressedconcernwithkeepingthe

Officescostslow. Forinstance,onelegislatorinquiredabouthowtomaketheOffice

asefficientandeffectiveaspossibleandnotedthatquestionsregardingwhowillbe

responsibleandhowthecostswillbebornewereimportanttoaddressincraftingthe

bill.37 Similarly,theOPAdirectorstestimonybeforethelegislaturecalledattentionto

theconservativefiscalnoteonthebill,seemingtoindicatethatthecreationofthisnew

OfficewouldnotraiseOPAscostssignificantly. 38 AndtheOPAdirectorspecifically

suggested adding a cost-recoverymechanism tokeep the Offices costs low.39 In

responsetothisrequest,legislatorsdraftedanamendmentthatultimatelycreatedthe

cost-recoveryprovisioncontainedinthefinalstatute.40 Werecognizethatthisoutcome

mayappearharshincaseswheretheOfficedoesnotprevailandthecourtfindsthatno

fraudoccurred,leavingtheaccusedandsometimestheprotectedpersonwhowasnot

36 See AS44.21.415(e)(providingforcostrecoveryonlywhenthe[Office]

isfoundtobeaprevailingparty).

37 Minutes,H.StateAffairsComm.HearingonHouseBill(H.B.)399,24thLeg.,2dSess.8:39-8:44(Feb.7,2006)(testimonyofRep.MaxGruenberg).

38 Minutes,H.FinanceComm.HearingonH.B.399,24th Leg., 2dSess.9:259:34(Mar.7,2006)(testimonyofJoshFink,Director,OPA).

39 Minutes,H.StateAffairsComm.HearingonH.B.399,24thLeg.,2dSess.8:30-8:31(Feb.7,2006)(testimonyofJoshFink,Director,OPA)(Thecommitteemay

wanttoconsiderifwelitigateonbehalfofindividualsthattheredbesomemechanismbywhich,ifweweresuccessful,wecouldrecoverouractualcosts,iftherewasnotfinancialhardshipontheindividualwewerelitigatingfor.).

40 Compare H.B.399,24thLeg.,2dSess.(Jan.27,2006)(lackingcost-recoveryprovision),with ch.64,2,SLA2006(containingcost-recoveryprovision).

-17- 7098


18/26

infactinneedofprotectiontobeartheirowncosts. Butwemustalsorecognizethat

thelegislatureevidentlytrustedtheOfficetofocusitseffortsonthemostmeritorious

cases,anditstructuredthecost-recoveryschemeaccordingly.

SidneyarguesthatAS44.21.415couldnothaveintendedtosetupa

one-waycost-recoverymechanism. Butthisisnottheonlycontextinwhichsucha

mechanismexists. Indomesticviolenceproceedings,forexample, thecourt may require

therespondenttopaythepetitionersattorneysfeesifaprotectiveorderisgranted;yet

thereisnoparallelprovisionallowingtherespondentinadomesticviolenceproceeding

tocollectattorneysfeesfromthepetitionerifthepetitionerdoesnotprevail. 41 The

legislative history of the elder fraud protective order provisions indicates that the

legislaturemodeledtheseprovisionsonthedomesticviolencestatutes, 42 soitmakes

sensethatthelegislaturechosetocreateasimilarone-wayfeemechanisminelderfraud

proceedings.43

41

AS18.66.100(c)(14).42 Minutes,H.FinanceComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,2dSess.1:44

1:48(Mar.1,2012)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.);Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:35-1:36(Apr.11,2011)(testimonyofSen.HollisFrench);Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:53-1:55(Feb.21,2011)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.).

43 Inbardisciplineproceedings,similarly,anattorneyisliableforattorneys

feesandcostswhenthereisafindingofmisconduct. AlaskaBarR.16(c)(3). Butifitisultimatelydeterminedthattheattorneydidnotengageinmisconduct,therulecontainsnoprovisionthatwouldenabletheattorneytorecoverfromtheDisciplinaryBoardanycostsorfeesincurredindefendingagainsttheallegations.See id. Thus,farfrombeingan anomaly here, one-way fee schemesare used in several other types of quasi

prosecutorialproceedings.

-18- 7098


19/26

Anumberofotherstatesuseasimilarapproachintheelderfraudandelder

abusecontext. Oregon,forinstance,allowstheStatetorecovercostsofinvestigation

andpenaltiesofupto$25,000ifitprevailsinanelderfraudcase,butithasnoparallel

provision allowing cost recovery if the accused prevails.44 In fact, Oregon law

specificallyprovidescivilimmunityto[a]nyoneparticipatingingoodfaithinthe

makingofa reportofelderabuseandwhohasreasonablegroundsformakingthe

report.45 Washington,similarly,providesthataprevailingplaintiffinanelderfraud

orabusecaseshallbeawardedhisorheractualdamages,togetherwiththecostsofthe

suit,includingareasonableattorneysfee, 46butitmakesnoprovisionforcostrecovery

intheotherdirection47andinfactprovidesimmunityfromcivilliabilityforanyonewho

makesagood-faithreportofelderfraud.48 Californiausesthesameapproach,allowing

theStatetorecovercostsfromtheotherpartiesbutnotallowingtheseotherpartiesto

recovercostsfromtheStateiftheyprevail.49 Sothecost-recoverymechanismdescribed

inAS44.21.415(e)isconsistentwiththeapproachusedbyotherstates,theapproach

usedinatleastoneotherrelevantareaofAlaskalaw,andtheintentofthelegislaturein

adoptingAS44.21.415andcreatingtheOfficetoprosecuteelderfraudcases. Forallof

thesereasons,weconcludethatthecost-recoverymechanismofAS44.21.415(e)applies

toelderfraudprotectiveorderproceedingsbroughtunderAS13.26.207-.209.

44 OR.REV.STAT.124.125(2015).

45 OR.REV.STAT.124.075(2015).

46 WASH.REV.CODE74.34.200(2016).

47 See id.

48 WASH.REV.CODE74.34.050(2016).

49 CAL.WELF.&INST.CODE15657.5(a)(West2016).

-19- 7098


20/26

HavingconcludedthatAS44.21.415(e)appliestotheseprotectiveorder

proceedings,wereasonthatCivilRule82cannotalsoapply. First,Rule82(a)itself

dictatesthatRule82doesnotapplywhenfeeshiftingisotherwiseprovidedbylaw.

In Vernon H., we concluded that the fee-shifting provision of AS 13.26.131(d)

constitutesaspecificstatutoryschemethattriggersCivilRule82(a)sprovisionthat

CivilRule82shallnotapplywhenfeeshiftingisotherwiseprovidedbylaw.50 Thus

wereasonedthatAS13.26.131(d)entirelydisplacesCivilRule82inguardianshipand

conservatorship proceedings.51 Here, similarly, the cost-recovery mechanism in

AS44.21.415(e) and 2AAC60.310 constitutesaspecificstatutory schemethat

entirelydisplacesRule82inelderfraudprotectiveorderproceedings.

AnexaminationoftheProbateRulesleadsustothesameconclusion.

ProbateRule1(e)prohibitstheapplicationofproceduresthatwouldinterferewiththe

unique character and purpose of a probate proceeding, including the elder fraud

protectiveproceedingsatissuehere.52 AsOPAhaspointedout,thelegislaturespurpose

inenactingtheelderfraudprotectiveorderprovisionswastoenhanceOPAsabilityto

addresselderfraudcasesinAlaska.53 ThelegislaturegaveOPAmultipletoolstoachieve

50 In re Protective Proceedings of Vernon H.,332P.3d565,577(Alaska2014).

51 Id.

52 The elder fraud protective order provisions, AS 13.26.207-.209, aregovernedbytheProbateRulesbecausetheyfallwithinTitle13oftheAlaskaStatutes.See AlaskaRuleProb.P.1(b)(Theserulesgovernpracticeandprocedureinthetrial

courtsinallphasesofproceedingsbroughtunderTitle13oftheAlaskaStatutes....).53 Ch.71,10,SLA2012;see Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.Hearingon

S.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:40-1:46(Feb.21,2011)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.)(describingtheproblemofelderfraudinAlaskaasthemotivation

(continued...)

-20- 7098


21/26

thisgoal;theprovisionforexparteprotectiveorders,inparticular,indicatesthatthe

legislatureclearlyintendedtogiveOPAsignificantpowertoaddresstheproblem.54

BecauseRule82allowsanawardofattorneysfeestotheprevailingpartyineverycivil

case,55 applyingRule82totheseproceedingswouldsubjecttheOfficetosignificant

liabilityforattorneysfees. Wehaveconcludedinsimilarcontextsthatthefearofan

adverseawardcouldsignificantlychillthewillingnessofapetitionertocommence

protectiveproceedingsinthepublicinterest.56 Here,too,thespecterofRule82feesin

anycasewhereOPAdoesnotprevailcouldsignificantlychillOPAswillingnessand

abilitytopursuecasesundertheelderfraudprovisions. Sucharesultwouldundermine

thelegislaturesverypurposeincreatingthismechanismforaddressingelderfraud. In

sum,applyingRule82totheelderfraudprotectiveorderprovisionswouldinterfere

withthe uniquecharacter and purposeoftheseproceedings.57 ProbateRule 1(e)

thereforedictatesthatRule82mustnotapplyhere.

53(...continued)

forthebill).

54 See AS13.26.207.

55 AlaskaR.Civ.P.82(a).

56 See Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst.,167P.3d701,703(Alaska2007)(concludingthatthereisnobasisforanattorneysfeeawardincivilcommitmentactions);Cooper v. State,638P.2d174,178(Alaska1981)(decliningtoawardsuchfeesinCINAcases).

57 WereachedasimilarconclusioninVernon H.,whereweexplainedthatCivilRule82couldnotapplybecauseitwouldinterferewiththeuniquecharacterand

purposeofguardianshipandconservatorshipproceedings inviolationofProbateRule1(e).In re Protective Proceedings of Vernon H.,332P.3d565,577(Alaska2014)(quotingAlaskaRuleProb.P.1(e)).

-21- 7098


22/26

ApplyingRule82wouldalsoconflictwiththelegislaturesevidentintent

tokeepcostslowwhilegivingOPAthesetoolsforaddressingelderfraud.Asdiscussed

above, this concern was the precise reason the legislature created a cost-recovery

mechanismwhenitestablishedtheOfficeofElderFraudandAssistance. Applying

Rule82 to elder fraudcases brought by the Officewould entirelyundermine the

legislaturespurposeincreatingthiscost-recoveryscheme.Inaddition,ourconclusion

thatRule82doesnotapplyisconsistentwiththelegislaturesdecisiontomodeltheelder

fraudprotectiveorderstatuteontheprovisionsfordomesticviolenceprotectiveorders, 58

whichagaindonotprovideforanawardofattorneysfeesagainstthepetitioner. 59

Accordingly, in the context of elder fraud protective orders under

AS 13.26.207-.209, we conclude that thecost-recovery mechanismestablishedby

AS44.21.415(e)entirelydisplacesCivilRule82. 60 Andbecausethatcost-recovery

mechanismdoesnotalloweitherthepersonaccusedofelderfraudortheprotected

58

Minutes,H.FinanceComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,2dSess.1:441:48(Mar.1,2012)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.);Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:35-1:36(Apr.11,2011)(testimonyofSen.HollisFrench);Minutes,S.JudiciaryComm.HearingonS.B.86,27thLeg.,1stSess.1:53-1:55(Feb.21,2011)(testimonyofKellyHenriksen,AssistantAttyGen.).

59 AS18.66.100(c)(14)(providingthatadomesticviolenceprotectiveordermayrequiretherespondenttopaycostsandfeesincurredbythepetitioner).

60

AlthoughtheregulationinterpretingAS44.21.415suggeststhatRule82mightapplyinproceedingsbroughtbytheOffice,specifyingthattheOfficecanseekastandardfeerecoveryfrom thedefendantunlessthecourtfindsjustificationforahigherawardunderAlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure82,forthereasonsexplainedaboveweconcludethatafeeawardunderRule82wouldbeinconsistentwiththestatutoryschemeestablishedbyAS44.21.415. See 2AAC60.310;AS44.21.415(e).

-22- 7098


23/26

persontorecoverattorneysfeesfromOPA,nofeesareavailabletoSidneyorJeanR.

inthiscase.

Jeansestatearguesthatafeeschemethatdoesnotprovideforafeeaward

againstOPApromotesunnecessaryorvindictivelitigationsin[c]ethepetitionerneed

notworryaboutanadversefeesaward.Butagain,thelegislaturechosenottocreate

a fee-shifting mechanism that might act as such a check on OPAs elder fraud

prosecutions, evidently trusting that the States limited resources and OPAs

prosecutorialdiscretionwouldleadtheOfficetofocusonthemostmeritoriouselder

fraudcases. Here, the superiorcourtwasunderstandablyconcernedthatOPAhad

imposedsignificantcostsonJeanandSidneybypursuinganelderfraudprotectiveorder

basedonallegationsthatwereultimatelyfoundtobeentirelywithoutmerit.Onthe

otherhand,OPAdidhavesomeevidentiarybasisforitspetitionatthetimeoffiling:

The recordindicatesthattheOffice reviewedbankstatements,subpoenaedandreviewed

financial records,interviewedShelleyandGeoffrey,communicatedwith theAdult

ProtectiveServicescaseworkerincontactwithJean,andrevieweddocumentsrelated

tothefinancialexpendituresatissue. Furtherinvestigation,ofcourse,eventuallyledthe

courttoconcludethatSidneysexpenditureswerenotfraudulentandthatSidneyhadin

factprovidedlovingcaretohermother. Butthisultimateresultcannotchangethefact

thatthelegislaturecreatedacost-allocationschemeunderAS44.21.415(e)thatdoesnot

permitanawardofattorneysfeesagainstOPA.

We therefore reverse the superior courts award ofattorneys fees in

connectionwiththeelderfraudprotectiveorderproceeding.

-23- 7098


24/26

B. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotErrInDenyingAttorneysFeesAgainstOPAInTheConservatorshipProceeding.

Oncross-appeal, Jeans estate and Sidney also challenge the superior

courtsdenialoffeesintheseparateconservatorshipproceeding.Inreviewingthis

decision,wefirstnotethatthesuperiorcourtproperlyconcludedthatAS13.26.131(d)

istheapplicablestatute. Iftherewasanydoubtastoitsapplicabilityatthetimeofthe

superiorcourtsorder,ouropinioninVernon H.hassinceclarifiedthatAS13.26.131(d)

applies in every guardianship or conservatorship case.61 Accordingly,

AS 13.26.131(d) entirely displaces Civil Rule 82 in [this] conservatorship

proceeding[].62

Byitsplainterms,AS13.26.131(d)allowsafeeawardonlyagainstaparty

whoinitiated aproceedingunderthischapterthatwasmalicious,frivolous,orwithout

just cause.63 The superior court found that OPA, by continuing to litigate the

conservatorshipproceedingthatwasbroughtbyShelley,didnotinitiateaproceeding

withinthemeaningofthatprovision. Incontinuingtolitigatetheconservatorship,OPA

tooktheroleofaninterestedparty,butthatinvolvementdidnotconvertOPAintothe

initiatoroftheproceeding.SidneynowarguesthatOPAactedasapartyfromtheverybeginningof

thecase becauseOPAslawyersconsultedwithShelleyand,accordingtoSidneys

allegations,OPAslawyersactuallypreparedtherevisedconservatorshippetitionthat

wassubmittedinShelleysname. ButthesuperiorcourtfoundthatevenShelleys

amendedpetitionwassignedpersonallyby[Shelley],andnotbycounselforOPA[]

61 Vernon H.,332P.3dat577.

62 Id.

63 Emphasisadded.

-24- 7098


25/26

andthat[t]hecasewasinitiallyfiledby[Shelley]...and[therewas]noreasonto

believe that she wasprompted todo so byOPA[]. Given that Shelleyfiled the

conservatorshippetition,itisclearthatsheinitiatedtheproceedingwithinthemeaning

ofAS13.26.131(d). ThusthesuperiorcourtcorrectlyconcludedthatOPAhadnot

initiatedtheproceeding,andthereforenofeeawardagainstOPAwasavailableunder

AS13.26.131(d).

ThesuperiorcourtwasjustifiablypuzzledbyOPAsdecisiontocontinue

thelitigation,particularlywhenfactssuchasthecorrectnamesofthepassengersonthe

airlineticketshadalreadycometolight,andthesuperiorcourtaptlynotedthat[o]ne

couldsecondguessthewaythiscasewaslitigated. ButweagreethatOPAsdecision

tocontinuelitigatingtheconservatorshipcannottriggertheprovisionforfeesagainstthe

initiatoroftheproceeding,evenifthatdecisionmayhaveprolongedthecaseandraised

costs for all parties involved. And in the settlement agreement reached in the

conservatorshipproceeding,JeanandSidneyagreednottoseekfeesagainstShelley,the

onlypartywhomightotherwisebesubjecttofeesastheinitiatorofthatproceeding.

JeansestateandSidneyalsoarguethatafeeawardisjustifiedbecause

collateralestoppelorresjudicatashouldhavebarredOPAscontinuedlitigationofthe

conservatorshippetitionaftertheelderfraudproceedingwasclosed,makingOPAs

continuedlitigationvexatious,frivolous,notingoodfaithandwithoutjustcause.But

weneednotreachthisissuegivenourconclusionthat,asathresholdmatter,afeeaward

under AS 13.26.131(d) is not available against a party who did not initiate the

proceeding.64

64 We also note that AS 13.26.230 provides that, unless otherwisecompensatedforservicesrendered,anyvisitor, lawyer,physician,conservator, orspecialconservatorappointedinaprotectiveproceedingisentitledtoreasonablecompensation

(continued...)

-25- 7098


26/26

Lastly,SidneyandJeansestatearguethatAS13.26.353(c)justifiesafee

award. ButAS13.26.353(c)isnotafee-shiftingstatute. Rather,itprovidesastatutory

causeofactionagainstthirdpart[ies]whofail[]tohonoraproperlyexecutedstatutory

formpowerofattorney....65 Pursuingformaladjudicationofaconservatorship

petitionthroughthecourtsystemisnotafail[ure]tohonorapowerofattorneybut

ratheranexplicitrecognitionofitslegitimacy. Here,accordingly,nofeesareavailable

underAS13.26.353(c).

For these reasons, weconclude that the superior court did not err in

decliningtoawardfeesagainstOPAintheconservatorshipproceeding.

V. CONCLUSION

WeREVERSEandVACATEthesuperiorcourtsfeeawardintheelder

fraudprotectiveorderproceeding. WeAFFIRMthedenialofattorneysfeesinthe

conservatorshipproceeding.

64(...continued)fromtheestate. See In re S.H.,987P.2d735,742(Alaska1999)(holdingthatthe

petitioners costs in a conservatorship proceeding should be charged against therespondentsestate). Noneofthepartieshascitedthisstatute,anditdoesnotappeartoaffecttheresult inthiscase. We thereforeexpressnoopiniononthe relationship

betweenAS13.26.131andAS13.26.230inothercases.

65 AS13.26.353(c).

-26- 7098

state, office of public advocacy, office of elder fraud & assistance v. estate of jean r., alaska...

Documents