Utah Court of Appeals
When can a conservator recover attorney fees from the estate? In re Jacobson Explained
Summary
Charity Stilson appealed the district court’s denial of her request for costs and expenses incurred while serving as her brother Landon Jacobson’s guardian and conservator. The court found that Stilson’s opposition to terminating the guardianship was unreasonable and conducted in bad faith, and that she proceeded as an interested person rather than in her conservator capacity.
Analysis
In In re Jacobson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about when conservators may use estate funds for legal fees and what happens when a conservator continues litigation after resignation.
Background and Facts
After Landon Jacobson suffered a severe brain injury in 2015, his sister Charity Stilson was appointed as his guardian and conservator. By 2017, multiple experts had evaluated Jacobson, with some concluding he had recovered capacity to manage his affairs. When Jacobson petitioned to terminate the guardianship and conservatorship, Stilson resigned but continued opposing termination as an “interested person.” The district court ultimately terminated the guardianship and conservatorship, finding Jacobson had regained capacity.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two main issues: (1) whether Stilson could recover attorney and expert fees from Jacobson’s estate for opposing termination of the guardianship, and (2) whether unpaid conservator compensation could offset reimbursement obligations to the estate.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Under Utah Code section 75-5-424(4), conservators may use estate funds only when “acting reasonably in efforts to accomplish the purpose for which the conservator was appointed.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of fees on two grounds. First, Stilson’s attorney represented that she was proceeding as an “interested person” rather than in her conservator capacity. Under sections 75-5-303(2) and 75-5-414, interested persons may recover costs only if their petition succeeds. Second, even if Stilson had acted as conservator, her opposition was unreasonable given credible expert testimony that Jacobson had regained capacity.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that conservators must act reasonably to justify using estate funds for legal expenses. The court’s finding that Stilson acted unreasonably—despite her stated good intentions—demonstrates that objective reasonableness is the controlling standard. Practitioners should carefully document the factual basis for conservatorship actions and ensure any continued litigation serves the protected person’s actual needs rather than the conservator’s concerns.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Jacobson
Citation
2019 UT App 56
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180018-CA
Date Decided
April 11, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A conservator may use estate funds only for reasonable efforts to accomplish the purpose for which appointed, and an interested person who unsuccessfully seeks appointment of a guardian or conservator is not entitled to attorney fees and costs.
Standard of Review
Questions of statutory construction are reviewed for correctness; questions of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; application of law to facts is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Practice Tip
When a conservator resigns but continues to oppose termination of the conservatorship, ensure clear designation of capacity to avoid forfeiting fee recovery rights under the interested person provisions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.