Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Conservatorship of Krueger CA4/2

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: E084601

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (17.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/10/26 Conservatorship of Krueger CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Conservatorship of ELIZABETH
KRUEGER.
E084601
AARON F. GARCIA,
(Super.Ct.No. PRIN2200974)
Petitioner and Respondent,
OPINION
v.

CRAIG KRUEGER,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. R. M. Velasquez, Judge.

Reversed with directions.

Craig Krueger, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.

Law Offices of Aaron F. Garcia and Aaron F. Garcia, in pro. per., for Petitioner

and Respondent.

1
I. INTRODUCTION

Objector and appellant Craig Krueger is the son of Elizabeth Krueger.1 At some

point, a conservatorship was established for Elizabeth, and petitioner and respondent

Aaron F. Garcia was subsequently appointed as independent counsel for Elizabeth

pursuant to Probate Code2 section 1471, subdivision (c). In November 2023, Garcia filed

a petition requesting an allowance of attorney’s fees, seeking compensation for work

performed in the conservatorship proceedings, a separate civil proceeding (Simkins case),

and a purportedly unfiled case Elizabeth sought to pursue to invalidate provisions of her

inter vivos trust. Multiple parties including Elizabeth’s conservator, Elizbeth’s guardian

ad litem, and Craig all filed written objections to Garcia’s request. After conducting a

hearing on the matter, the trial court partially granted Garcia’s requested allowance,

including compensation for Garcia’s purported work in the Simkins case.

Craig appeals, asserting multiple claims of error. We need not discuss the merits

of each claim in detail because we agree with Craig that the probate court abused its

discretion by awarding compensation to Garcia for work performed in a separate civil

proceeding. As we explain, such an award was not authorized by statute for counsel

appointed to represent a conservatee pursuant to section 1471 and, even if Garcia may be

entitled to compensation for this work based on some alternative theory of recovery, the

probate court could not adjudicate such a claim based upon the petition filed by Garcia.

1 Because multiple parties share the same surname, we will refer to Craig Krueger
and Elizabeth Krueger by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code.

2
As such, we reverse the order and remand the matter for further proceedings.

II. BACKGROUND

In July 2022, a petition was filed to establish a conservatorship for the person and

estate of Elizabeth.3 Shortly after the filing of the petition, the probate court appointed

independent counsel to represent Elizabeth in the conservatorship proceedings. In

October 2022, the probate court held a hearing on the petition, issued an order appointing

a temporary conservator for Elizabeth, and continued the hearing for purposes of

determining whether appointment of a general conservator was warranted.

In January 2023, Elizabeth purportedly met with Garcia and retained him to

perform work in her conservatorship matter, as well as a related civil litigation in which

Elizabeth had been named as a defendant (Simkins case). Garcia received $25,000 from

Elizabeth as a retainer. On January 31, 2023, Garcia filed a declaration with the probate

court requesting to be appointed as independent counsel for Elizabeth in the

conservatorship proceedings pursuant to section 1471, subdivision (d). On July 12, 2023,

a substitution of attorney was filed in the conservatorship proceeding bearing Elizabeth’s

signature and requesting that Garcia be appointed as her counsel. On July 20, 2023, the

probate court issued an order appointing Garcia as independent counsel for Elizabeth

pursuant to section 1471, subdivision (c).

In November 2023, Garcia filed a “petition for attorney’s fees.” The petition

consisted solely of a verified declaration stating that Garcia had been initially retained by

3 The appellate record does not disclose the allegations of the petition or
Elizabeth’s relationship with the person who filed the initial petition.

3
Elizabeth in January 2023 and requesting an award of attorney’s fees for work performed

on three separate cases: (1) the pending conservatorship proceeding before the probate

court, (2) the Simkins Case, and (3) an unfiled case that Elizbeth intended to bring to

invalidate her trust. Garcia attached three separate sets of billing statements

corresponding to each of the cases in which he sought compensation. The petition was

not accompanied by a memorandum or any other explanation regarding the legal basis

upon which Garcia claimed the right to compensation.4 In response to the petition,

separate objections were filed by: (1) Craig, (2) Elizabeth’s conservator, (3) Elizabeth’s

court-appointed guardian ad litem, and (4) the co-trustee of Elizabeth’s living trust.5

Craig specifically objected on the ground that Garcia’s expansion of services into matters

unrelated to the conservatorship proceeding were improper and should not be

compensated.

4 The caption of Garcia’s petition briefly referenced section 2642. However, this
reference was clearly in error, as section 2642 pertains only to attorneys who render legal
services to a conservator (§ 2642, subd. (a)), and Garcia did not claim to have been
retained or to have performed work on behalf of Elizabeth’s conservator.

5 While the written objection filed with the probate court did not identify the
status of this last objector, subsequent documents in the appellate record identify this
objector as a person named as a co-trustee of Elizabeth’s inter vivos trust.

4
In May 2024, Garcia filed a “response to order to show cause regarding petition

for attorney’s fees.”6 In this response, Garcia asserted his status as appointed

independent counsel pursuant to section 1471 as the only basis for his claim for

compensation. In response, Craig filed additional objections to Garcia’s assertion of a

right to compensation as Elizabeth’s independent counsel. On June 26, 2024, Garcia

filed a “supplemental response” in which he asserted for the first time that his right to

compensation should be granted on a quasi-contract theory. Craig again filed an

objection to this supplemental response.

On July 3, 2024, the probate court held a hearing on Garcia’s petition. Craig was

the only party who presented oral argument to the probate court, including Craig’s

assertion that any work done in the Simkins case could not be compensated. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the probate court (1) granted Garcia’s requested compensation

for work performed in the conservatorship case; (2) granted Garcia’s requested

compensation for work performed in the Simkins case but reduced the specific amount of

fees requested; and (3) denied Garcia’s requested compensation for work performed in an

unfiled case that would have sought to invalidate Elizabeth’s trust. In reaching this

decision, the probate court addressed several of Craig’s arguments but did not offer an

explanation for granting Garcia an award of compensation in the Simkins case.

Craig appeals from the order granting Garcia’s petition for compensation.

5
III. DISCUSSION

A. Craig Has Appellate Standing

As an initial matter, we address Garcia’s assertion that the appeal should be

dismissed due to Craig’s lack of standing. According to Garcia, Craig has no standing

because the only party potentially injured by an erroneous award of compensation is

Elizabeth. We conclude that Craig has standing to challenge the order subject of this

appeal.

“The right to appeal is purely statutory. [Citations.] Code of Civil Procedure

section 902 defines ‘Who May Appeal’ from a judgment. [Citation.] The statute

provides ‘ “Any party aggrieved” may appeal from an adverse judgment. [Citation.] The

test is twofold—one must be both a party of record to the action and aggrieved to have

standing to appeal.’ ” (Conservatorship of Gregory D. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 62, 67

(Gregory D.).) The rule is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. (Ibid.) For the purpose

of determining appellate standing, “[a]n aggrieved person . . . is one whose rights or

interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and

not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision.” (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th

231, 236.)

Here, it is undisputed that Craig is a party to the action.7 Thus, the only question

as to Craig’s standing to pursue this appeal is whether Craig is “aggrieved” by the order

7 Generally, relatives of a proposed conservatee or “interested persons” are
entitled to participate in conservatorship proceedings. (§§ 1820, 1829; Conservatorship
of Anne S. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1027.) The definition of “interested person” for
[footnote continued on next page]

6
awarding Garcia compensation. The record shows that Elizabeth’s estate is managed

pursuant to an inter vivos trust, which provides that Craig stands to inherit a portion of

the remainder of the estate upon Elizabeth’s passing. At least in situations in which a

person’s expectation of an inheritance is not purely speculative,8 courts have recognized

that an order diminishing the prospective inheritance is sufficient injury to render that

person aggrieved for purposes of appellate standing. (See Conservatorship of Hart

(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1251, fn. 1 [diminution of expected inheritance of named

beneficiary in a will sufficient to confer appellate standing]; Estate of Bartsch (2011)

193 Cal.App.4th 885, 890-891 [potential heir had appellate standing to challenge award

of attorney fees where the award might diminish the estate, despite the fact that heir’s

right to inherit remained unresolved].)9 Because “standing to appeal is construed

these purposes includes an “heir, devisee, child, . . . , beneficiary, and any other person
having a property right in or claim against a trust estate . . . which may be affected by the
proceeding.” (§ 48, subd. (a)(1).) While the record does not include the initial petitions
or manner in which Craig became a party to this action, documents in the appellate record
indicate that Craig is a named beneficiary who stands to inherit from Elizabeth’s trust.
Thus, Craig has a right to participate as a party in the conservatorship proceedings
involving Elizabeth both because he is a relative and because he is a beneficiary of
Elizabeth’s trust.

8 We also observe that California recognizes the tort of intentional interference
with expectation of inheritance so long as the expected inheritance is not too speculative.
(Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1049-1057; Gomez v. Smith (2020)
54 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1030-1031.) Clearly, if the diminution of an expected inheritance
constitutes a sufficient injury to support a cause of action in tort, the same alleged injury
is sufficient to show a party is aggrieved for purposes of appellate standing.

9 This does not mean that a financial interest in the conservatee’s estate is
sufficient to confer appellate standing to challenge any order in the proceedings. For
example, an interested party has no appellate standing to appeal orders that only impact
[footnote continued on next page]

7
liberally, and doubts are resolved in its favor” (In re K.C., supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 236),

we are satisfied that Craig has shown he is sufficiently aggrieved by the order awarding

Garcia compensation because it effectively diminishes the estate from which Craig stands

to inherit. Thus, we conclude Craig has standing to challenge the order on appeal.

B. The Probate Court’s Order Was an Abuse of Discretion

On appeal, Craig asserts various arguments regarding the propriety of the probate

court’s order awarding compensation to Garcia. We need not address each of Craig’s

arguments in detail because we agree with Craig that the probate court could not award

Garcia compensation for work performed in a related civil proceeding based upon the

petition submitted by Garcia in this case. As a result, the probate court abused its

discretion; and the order must be reversed and remanded for the probate court to consider

what amount of fees should be properly awarded to Garcia.

1. General Legal Principles and Standard of Review

Generally, the appointment of a conservator of an estate constitutes an

adjudication that the conservatee lacks legal capacity to enter into transactions (§ 1870),

effectively prohibiting a conservatee from entering into a contract for services to obtain

legal representation. (See Conservatorship of Chilton (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 34, 40.)

Instead, the conservator has the authority to commence and maintain actions and

proceedings for the benefit of the conservatee or estate as well as the authority to retain

the procedural or personal rights of a conservatee. (Gregory D., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th
at p. 68; see Estate of Kempton (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 189, 201-203 [interested party
“aggrieved by asserted error on one narrow, discrete issue may not appeal on other issues
that only affect the interests of a nonappealing third party”].)

8
legal counsel to advise and represent the conservator in such matters. (§§ 2462, subd. (a),

2451.5, subd. (c).) Historically, these general conservatorship principles meant that a

conservatee was only entitled to independent counsel in limited circumstances, such as

when the conservator pursues an action that might significantly impact the conservatee’s

fundamental rights. (Michelle K. v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 409, 445;

Wendland v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 44, 46-48.)

However, in 2021, the Legislature amended the Probate Code to include the

following provision: “If a conservatee . . . expresses a preference for a particular attorney

to represent them, the court shall allow representation by the preferred attorney . . . and

the attorney shall provide zealous representation as provided in subdivision (e).”

(§ 1471, subd. (d); Stats. 2021, ch. 417, § 6.) The role of legal counsel appointed under

this statute is that of an independent advocate representing the wishes of the conservatee.

(§ 1471, subd. (e).) These statutory amendments effectively mandated the appointment

of independent private counsel upon the conservatee’s request in specified

conservatorship proceedings, limited only by the designated counsel’s ability to zealously

represent the conservatee’s wishes without conflict.

Compensation for independent counsel appointed pursuant to section 1471 is

governed by section 1472. (§ 1472.) The probate court is required to first fix a

reasonable sum for compensation and expenses of counsel. (§ 1472, subd. (a)(1).)

Thereafter, the probate court is required to determine the conservatee’s ability to pay all

or a portion of that sum. (Ibid.) If the conservatee is able to pay the sum, then the

probate court “shall order the conservator of the estate . . . to pay . . . in any manner the

9
court determines to be reasonable and compatible with the [conservatee’s] financial

ability.” (§ 1472, subd. (a)(2).)

We review the probate court’s award of attorney fees in conservatorship

proceedings for abuse of discretion. (Conservatorship of Levitt (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th

544, 549.) “[A] reviewing court will only interfere with a trial court’s exercise of

discretion where it finds that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of

the trial court’s action, no judge could have reasonably reached the challenged result. . . .

[A] trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless the record establishes it

exceeded the bounds of reason or contravened the uncontradicted evidence [citation],

failed to follow proper procedure in reaching its decision [citation], or applied the wrong

legal standard to the determination.” (Conservatorship of Scharles (1991) 233

Cal.App.3d 1334, 1340.)

1. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion

Here, the only basis upon which Garcia initially claimed an entitlement to

compensation was pursuant to his status as Elizabeth’s independent counsel appointed

under section 1471. With respect to work performed in this capacity, the trial court has

discretion to award compensation, even if the work is performed prior to Garcia’s formal

appointment as independent counsel.10 (§ 1472.)

10 For this reason, Craig’s does not show an abuse of discretion merely because
Garcia was retained after Elizabeth had already been adjudged incompetent; that the
probate court authorized Garcia to keep a retainer furnished prior to an order awarding
fees; or that Garcia requested compensation for work performed prior to his formal
appointment as independent counsel.

10
However, as this court has explained, under section 1471, “[t]he appointment of

private counsel is limited to five proceedings.” (White v. Davis (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th

270, 291.) The civil action in which Garcia purportedly performed work is not one of the

statutorily authorized proceedings.11 Thus, even though Garcia was appointed as

independent counsel pursuant to section 1471, that appointment cannot serve as a basis

for claiming an entitlement to compensation for work performed on litigation unrelated to

the conservatorship proceeding. Therefore, even assuming Garcia could validly represent

Elizabeth in the Simkins Case, any entitlement to compensation for work performed in

that case cannot be based upon his appointment as independent counsel under section

1. (See Conservatorship of Berry (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 706, 724 [even where

public defender can validly represent conservatee in legal proceeding, public defender is

not entitled to an award of fees under § 1472 where the proceeding is not listed in §

1471].) To the extent the probate court granted Garcia’s request for compensation for

work in the Simkins case based upon Garcia’s status as appointed counsel pursuant to

section 1471, the order constitutes an abuse of discretion for failing to appreciate the

statutory limits on the scope of independent counsel’s representation. (Conservatorship

11 Specifically, a conservatee is statutorily entitled to independent counsel for
“(1) A proceeding to establish or transfer a conservatorship or to appoint a proposed
conservator; A proceeding to terminate the conservatorship; A proceeding to
remove the conservator; A proceeding for a court order affecting the legal capacity
of the conservatee[;] and A proceeding to obtain an order authorizing removal of a
temporary conservatee from the temporary conservatee’s place of residence.” (§ 1471,
subd. (a).)

11
of Lee C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1092 [“It is an abuse of discretion to misinterpret

or misapply the law.”].)

We acknowledge that Garcia belatedly sought to assert an alternative basis for

compensation, arguing that he could be awarded fees based upon a quasi-contract theory.

However, “[p]robate proceedings are purely statutory, therefore, probate courts ‘may not

competently proceed in a manner essentially different from that provided’ by the

statutory scheme.” (Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487, 498-499;

Conservatorship of Coffey (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1439; Estate of Quinn (1955) 43

Cal.2d 785, 787; Estate of Wise (1949) 34 Cal.2d 376, 381.) Thus, even where the

probate court is vested with wide, express powers to make orders, it “must exercise those

powers ‘within the procedural framework laid out in the governing statutes’ of the

Probate Code.” (Babbitt v. Superior Court (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1144.) As we

explain, even assuming Garcia had a meritorious claim to recover compensation based

upon a quasi-contract theory, the probate court could not have adjudicated that claim

based upon the petition actually before the court.

The Probate Code provides that an attorney’s claim for compensation is governed

by section 243012, which generally governs the payment of all debts owed by a

12 Specific statutory exceptions exist which permit an award of compensation
using alternative procedures when the probate court determines compensation for an
attorney under the probate court’s supervision performing work in the probate
proceedings. For example, section 1472 places a duty on the probate court to set the
compensation due to an attorney appointed pursuant to section 1471. (§ 1472.)
Similarly, an attorney representing a conservator in the probate proceedings is permitted
to petition the probate court directly for an award of compensation. (§ 2642.)

12
conservatee. (§ 2430, subd. (a)(4)(C) [listing “reasonable expenses incurred in the

collection, care, and administration of the estate” by an “attorney for the ward or

conservatee” as a debt or expense].) Similarly, a claim for payment on a quasi-contract

theory is considered a debt of the conservatee governed by section 2430.

(Conservatorship of Parker (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 803, 809.) Under section 2430, a

claim for payment of a debt owed by the conservatee must be submitted to the

conservator, who has the initial responsibility of evaluating the claim and determining

what is due. (§ 2430, subd. (a).) In the case of a claim for attorney’s fees, the

conservator must petition the probate court for instructions to authorize any payment.

(§ 2430, subd. (c).) Only after the conservator fails or refuses to take action on a request

to pay a debt is a creditor permitted to petition the probate court directly for an order of

payment. (§ 2404, subd. (a).)13

The process outlined in section 2430 represents more than an academic or

theoretical difference in procedure. Unlike compensation awarded under section 1472,

“payment of debts incurred by the conservatee during the conservatorship ‘are not

required to be made to the extent the payments would impair the ability to provide the

necessaries of life to the conservatee.’ ” (Conservatorship of Parker (2014)

13 Additionally, while the probate court is a court of general jurisdiction with the
same power and authority as any other superior court judge presiding over civil matters
(§ 800), depending on the nature of the claim made against the estate, the probate court
may be required to conduct a trial in order to determine whether an alleged debt is
“ ‘lawfully due and payable’ ” under section 2404. (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1970)
9 Cal.App.3d 904, 907 [interpreting identical provision in predecessor statute and
observing that the probate code cannot abrogate a conservatee’s constitutional right to a
trial with respect to disputed claims made by third parties].)

13
228 Cal.App.4th 803, 808; § 2430, subds. (a)(3), (b).) Thus, before the probate court can

determine an amount to award a claimant under section 2430, it must be adequately

informed of the financial state of the conservatorship estate and the ability of the

conservator to provide for the conservatee’s necessities of life. Section 2430’s

requirement that a claimant first bring the claim to the conservator so that the conservator

may petition for instructions serves an important purpose by giving the conservator

sufficient notice and time to provide the probate court with all the necessary information

required to determine whether and to what extent a payment should be authorized.

Nothing in the record here suggests that Garcia submitted a request for payment of

the fees incurred pursuant to his work in the Simkins case to the conservator or that the

conservator refused to take action on such a request prior to the filing of Garcia’s

petition.14 Nor does the record show that any party provided the probate court with any

information regarding the financial status of Elizabeth’s estate or the anticipated costs of

her necessities of life such that the probate court could have made an informed decision

to authorize payment of Garcia’s claim under the authority provided in section 2430.

14 While the conservator objected to Garcia’s request, she did so only on the
ground that the billing appeared to “ste[m] across various actions” but “the costs to bring
this narrowly tailored issue to trial far exceed the amount sought by this Petition.” Thus,
it may very well be that had Garcia first raised his claim with the conservator, the
conservator would have had sufficient notice to review the billing, negotiate or reduce the
scope of any amount in dispute, and simply petition the probate court for instructions as
to those amounts in doubt. By skipping this statutorily required step and proceeding
straight to the probate court, Garcia essentially placed the parties in the very position
expressed by the conservator—to either acquiesce to his request or incur significant legal
expenses to oppose the entirety of the request in a formal proceeding at the risk of
detriment to the conservatee’s estate.

14
Finally, the claim regarding the existence of a quasi-contract was raised only six days

before the scheduled hearing in a supplemental reply brief, depriving the conservator of

the notice and opportunity to respond that would otherwise be afforded under a petition

by Garcia under section 2404.

Thus, even if Garcia might be entitled to compensation based upon a quasi-

contract theory, the probate court could not adjudicate that claim based upon the petition

filed by Garcia. The use of procedural shortcuts that circumvent the procedural

protections afforded to litigants by statute constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Dunlap v.

Mayer (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 419, 427 [abuse of discretion in failing to hold a hearing to

consider evidence on a contested issue in the manner proscribed by the probate code].)

To the extent the probate court intended to award Garcia compensation for his work on

the Simkins case under a quasi-contract theory of recovery, we would still conclude that

this decision was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.

1. Prejudice and Remedy

Finally, we conclude that the error in this case was not harmless. Generally, even

when error occurs, reversal is not warranted unless “it is reasonably probable a result

more favorable to [the appellant] would have been reached absent the error.”

(Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487, 497.) In this case, the probate

court authorized payment of $25,975.53 for services rendered in the Simkins case, an

award that would not have been made had the probate court correctly applied the law.

Further, even assuming Garcia could prove his entitlement to this compensation in a

separate proceeding, the probate court awarded Garcia $1,237.50 purely for litigating the

15
petition. However, had Garcia followed the proper procedure for submitting a claim to

the conservator, the burden to bring a petition for instructions to the probate court would

have initially fallen on the conservator (§ 2430, subd. (c)), potentially reducing or

eliminating these fees. On this record, we are satisfied that there is a reasonable

probability that a result more favorable to Craig would have been reached absent the

error.

Given the record before us, we believe that remand for a new hearing and

determination is warranted. Craig had a competing request for disgorgement of the

retainer fees collected by Garcia, which was rendered moot by the probate court’s award

of compensation to Garcia. The probate court will have to reexamine whether such relief

is appropriate after reassessing the appropriate amount of compensation due to Garcia’s

position as independent counsel under section 1472. Additionally, the probate court may

need to reassess whether the attorney’s fees claimed by Garcia for litigating the petition

are still appropriate to the extent Garcia may not be the prevailing party with respect to

the majority of the relief requested in his petition.

16
IV. DISPOSITION

The order is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with the principles set forth in this opinion. Appellant is awarded

his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS
J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

RAPHAEL
J.

17