Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians

Probate—Disability—Conservator—Fiduciary Duty—Conflict of Interest—Jurisdiction—Civil Theft. Black is the former conservator for his mentally-ill sister, Joanne. When he filed his petition to be appointed conservator, he did not tell the probate court that he sought the appointment to disclaim Joanne's interest in payable-on-death (POD) assets so that they could be redistributed in accordance with his and his children's expectations of his mother's estate plan. Nor did he disclose this conflict of interest when he requested authorization to disclaim Joanne's assets. Black later admitted this conflict. The probate court found that Black breached his fiduciary duties and committed civil theft by converting his sister's assets for his own benefit. Specifically, the court concluded that Black failed to adequately disclose his intent to use a disclaimer to divest his sister of one-third of the (POD) assets, and therefore did not have the court's authorization to redirect the assets. The court determined that his actions were undertaken in bad faith and satisfied the elements of civil theft. Based on its findings, the court surcharged Black in the amount of the converted funds and then trebled those damages under the civil theft statute. On appeal, Black first argued that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to enter the hearing order because only a CRCP 60(b) motion, and not a motion to void the disclaimer, could undo the court's order authorizing the disclaimer. However, the motion to void the disclaimer did not seek relief from a final order. Instead, the motion alleged that Black had breached his fiduciary duties to Joanne while acting as conservator, and it sought to unwind a transaction based on this breach. Thus, the probate court's jurisdiction was based on the court's authority to monitor fiduciaries over whom it has obtained jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegations and issues raised by the motion to void the disclaimer

<p>Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 710, on bill in equity in case of 'Maebeth-Evans Glass Company v. Harry A. Schnelbach and Jefferson Glass Company.</p> <p>Bill in equity for an injunction.</p> <p>Shafer, J., found the facts to be as follows:</p> <p>First. The Maebeth-Evans Glass Company was incorporated in 1899,. and has been principally engaged since that time in the manufacture and sale of glassware for illuminating, purposes. Mr. George A. Macbeth has been president of the company since its organization, and has been engaged in the manufacture of glass since about 1872.</p> <p>. , Second. At the time of the formation of the MaebethEvans. Glass Company the defendant Harry Schnelbach was in the employ of the Thomas Evans Glass Company, one of the constituent companies out of which the plaintiff company was formed, and he thereupon entered into the employ of the plaintiff company and remained in its employ until about the beginning of the year 1910, being employed, as a factory superintendent.</p> <p>Third. Beginning in the year 1900 or soon thereafter George A. Macbeth on behalf of the plaintiff company began a series of investigations and experiments for the purpose of discovering a method of making a better semi-translucent glass for illuminating purposes than those theretofore known. The defect in the glass which he .endeavored to remedy was that the means taken to make it more or less opaque also prevented the diffusion of light through it, and the object was to make a glass which should appear to be opaque and yet should allow the light to be diffused through it. For this purpose Mr. Macbeth consulted the literature on glass-making and consulted with Mr. Nash of the Tiffany works and had him make experiments, but without success. He then employed a chemist, Mr. Silverman, to investigate the matter and make experiments, about September of 1902, and these experiments were continued to the su