In re: Conservatorship of June Delores Lacey, Protected Person.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0125

In re: Conservatorship of June Delores Lacey, Protected Person.

Filed August 30, 2021
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Otter Tail County District Court
File No. 56-PR-18-2692

Joyce Lacey, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Hooten , Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M. , Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s approval of a final accounting of decedent’s
estate by respondent-conservator. We affirm.
FACTS
This case involves a dispute between appellant Joyce Lacey (Lacey) and respondent
Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota (LSS) over the final accounting and discharge of
LSS’s conservatorship for appellan t’s mother, June Delores Lacey. We previously

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
addressed another appeal involving the same conservatorship, reversing for lack of
evidentiary support for a court-ordered payment of fees claimed by LSS for its services as
June’s conservator. In re Estate o f June Lacey, Deceased , No. A20 -0203 (Minn. App.
Nov. 18, 2020) (order op.). In this appeal, Lacey challenges the district court’s order
approving LSS’s final accounting of its conservatorship of June’s estate.
June had a diagnosis of progressive Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and inability to
perform executive functions. Lacey was her primary caregiver, administering her
medications, cooking and cleaning for her, and taking her to the doctor and hospital. In
July 2018, Otter Tail County Human Services (the county) opened a vulnerable adult
investigation regarding June based on a report that Lacey was reusing catheters, causing
June recurring infections. The pair visited a hospital or clinic four times during July
seeking treatment for head injuries Jun e suffered from two falls that month. Woodlands
Hospital admitted June in August 2018 for respiratory failure related to Lacey giving June
excess fluids and an incorrect dosage of a medication. The hospital staff recommended
that June enter a long -term care facility, but Lacey refused to allow her to do so. The
hospital ultimately discharged June with the understanding that she would receive home
care from a licensed provider, but Lacey declined the service when a provider contacted
her. June was next e victed from her apartment in Fergus Falls at the end of August, and
she and Lacey ended up with a friend in the Twin Cities. In September, Woodlands again
admitted June and raised concerns over Lacey’s care for her. June’s social worker also
began suspecting that emails she received from June were actually written by Lacey, since
the hospital reported that June was non -verbal, needed total care, and sometimes slept all
day.
Based on all these circumstances, the county petitioned for an order appointing LSS
as June’s emergency guardian and conservator, stating that “[June] will be discharged from
the hospital and Otter Tail County Human Services believes an emergency guardian needs
to be appointed to ensure that [she] is placed in an appropriate care faci lity as required by
her medical team.” The district court granted the petition establishing the guardianship
and conservatorship for 90 days starting September 19, 2018. LSS then moved June from
Woodlands Hospital to a nursing home in Frazee. LSS and the hospital staff did not warn
Lacey about the move beforehand because they feared that if she knew, she would try to
remove June from the hospital because she did not want her to live in a nursing home.
Following the move, a court visitor interviewed June at the nursing home and concluded
that she required a guardian and conservator because she was not mentally or physically
capable of caring for herself or her finances.
The county subsequently petitioned to make the guardianship and conservatorship
permanent, which Lacey resisted. The parties resolved their dispute in November 2018,
with the county withdrawing its petition for permanent conservatorship and proceeding
with its petition for permanent guardianship, and Lacey agreeing to “take over as the
conservatorship with the agreement that she would pay the bills,” when the emergency
order expired on December 19, 2018. Once the emergency conservatorship expired in
December, “Lacey handled [June’s] financial affairs through her power of attorney.” The
district court granted the petition to make LSS permanent guardian in January 2019.
June died on January 25, 2019. LSS filed a final accounting of its conservatorship
of June’s estate. According to an LSS representative who testified at the final accou nting
hearing, “the final accounting show[ed] everything that [LSS] paid and . . . received”
during its emergency conservatorship. An auditor with the Minnesota Judicial Branch’s
Conservator Account Auditing Program reviewed the final accounting compared against
“financial statements, property tax statements, cancelled check images, invoices, receipts
and additional information obtained from the conservator.” The auditor found that LSS
incorrectly duplicated two payments for health care services ($47.83 a nd $100,
respectively) which LSS later refunded to June’s estate. The auditor also could not confirm
the ending balance of two of June’s accounts, held jointly with Lacey, because as of
January 25, 2019, Lacey had not provided a statement of the balance of one of the accounts,
and the bank had refused to provide a statement for the other account. The auditor therefore
accepted the last known balance of those accounts on September 30, 2018. The auditor
concluded that the ending balance of LSS’s final accounting was correct and recommended
that the district court approve the account “if the court finds the expenditures to be proper
and detects no other concerns.”
Lacey objected to the final accounting and requested an evidentiary hearing. After
the hearing, the district court ordered the final accounting settled and discharged LSS from
the conservatorship. Lacey moved for reconsideration under Minn. R. Gen. P. 115.11. The
district court granted the motion and ordered a new hearing. The parties’ attorneys agreed
to a limited set of questions and stipulated exhibits, and the district court took testimony
and evidence during the hearing. The district court again ordered the final accounting
settled with no corrections or changes.
Lacey appealed. LSS di d not file a brief, and we ordered that the appeal proceed
under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.
DECISION
Lacey challenges the adequacy of the district court’s findings supporting the final
accounting. We review a district court’s order allowing a final accounting for clear error,
reviewing the record for support for the factual findings. In re Conservatorship of Moore,
409 N.W.2d 14, 16 -17 (Minn. App. 1987); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The district court’s
findings on the accounting “must be detailed, specific and sufficient enough to enable
meaningful review by this court.” In re Guardianship of Doyle , 778 N. W.2d 342, 353
(Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted). But even when a district court fails to make
findings adequate for our review, we may independently review the record for support for
the district court’s final accounting approval. See Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 865
(Minn. 1986). Before addressing Lacey’s arguments, we review the duties of a conservator
and the district court, along with the procedures governing a final accounting in a
conservatorship.
In conservatorship proceedings, the conser vator has the duty to protect the estate
from depletion, “to pay the reasonable charges for the support, maintenance, and education
of the person . . . [,] to pay . . . all lawful debts of the person . . . [; and] to possess and
manage the estate, collect all debts and claims in favor of the person,” among other duties.
Minn. Stat. § 524.5-417(c)(1)-(3) (2020); In re Conservatorship of W.R.L ., 396 N.W.2d
705, 707 (Minn. App. 1986). To ensure proper monitoring of this duty by the district court,
the conser vator must “[w]ithin 60 days after appointment . . . prepare and file with the
appointing court a detailed inventory of the estate subject to the conservatorship, together
with an oath or affirmation that the inventory is believed to be complete and accura te as
far as information permits.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-419(a) (2020). The conservator must
“keep records of the administration of the estate and make them available for examination
on reasonable request of the court, person subject to guardianship, perso n subject to
conservatorship, or any attorney representing such persons.” Id., (b) (2020). The
conservator must also file an annual accounting of the estate, including “a listing of the
assets of the estate under the conservator’s control and a listing o f the receipts,
disbursements, and distributions during the reporting period.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-420(a)-
(b) (2020).
The district court, in turn, “shall establish a system for monitoring of
conservatorships, including the filing and review of conservator s’ reports and plans,” to
ensure the conservator satisfies its duty. Id., (h) (2020); see Doyle, 778 N.W.2d at 347-48;
Moore, 409 N.W.2d at 16 -17. As part of its review of the accounting, the district court
“may appoint a visitor to review a report or pl an, interview the person subject to
conservatorship or conservator, and make any other investigation the court directs.” Minn.
Stat. § 524.5-420(g) (2020). The district court also “may order a conservator to submit the
assets of the estate to an appropriate examination to be made in a manner the court directs.”
Id. As a further part of its review, the district court may order the conservator to show
cause to support transactions in the accounting and may hold a hearing on that order. See
Doyle, 778 N.W .2d at 345 -48. The conservator bears the burden to present evidence to
support transactions questioned by the district court. See Minn. Stat. § 524.5-420(g);
Doyle, 778 N.W.2d at 347, 51.
In addition to its own review, the district court may take objections from any
interested person, like Lacey, who “may submit to the court a written statement disputing
account statements . . . or addressing any disciplinary or legal action that is contained in
the reports and may petition the court for any order [for] appropriate relief.” Minn. Stat.
§§ 524.5-420(e), 524.5-102, subd. 7 (2020). T hat person bears the burden of proving the
alleged errors in the accounting or the conservator’s malfeasance. See In re
Conservatorship of Grunlund, 407 N.W.2d 141, 141-43 (Minn. App. 1987).
The district court’s review of an accounting ends when it “allows” that accounting.
See Minn. Stat. § 524.5-420(a). T he district court may only allow an accounting after
giving notice to all interested people and holding a hearing on the accounting, during which
it should receive argument and evidence on any of its unresolved concerns and those raised
by objectors. See id.; Doyle, 778 N.W.2d at 347-48; Grunlund, 407 N.W.2d at 141 -43.
Following the hearing, t he district court may dis allow the accounting in whole or any
transactions it finds exorbitant or non -beneficial for the conservatee, as well as any
unreasonable conservator fees. See Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5-420(a), 524.5-502(c) (2020);
Doyle, 778 N.W.2d at 347-48, 50-53; In re Conservatorship of Lasley, No. A06-916, 2007
WL 1053376, at *3-4 (Minn. App. Apr. 10, 2007) (affirming district court’s disallowance
of expenses that it found were not for the benefit of the conservatee). I f the district court
allows the accounting, it “ confirms [a conservatee’s] assets, income, and expenses, [and]
adjudicates the propriety of the conservator’s management of the . . . estate.” Greer v. Pro.
Fiduciary, Inc., 792 N.W.2d 120, 128 (Minn. App. 2011). See also Minn. Stat. § 524.5-
420(a) (“An order , after notice and hearing, allowing a final report adjudicates all
previously unsettled liabilities relating to the conservatorship.”).
This case followed the process described above. LSS filed a final accounting with
the district court and requested t hat the district court approve the final accounting and
discharge LSS from its role as conservator. The Conservator Account Auditing Program
reviewed the final accounting and found that it accurately reflected the estate’s assets.
Lacey challenged the ac curacy of the final accounting. The district court held a hearing
during which it received testimony and evidence regarding the accounting and Lacey’s
alleged errors. It then allowed the final accounting and discharged LSS, finding that the
final accounting accurately reflected the debits, credits, and balance of the estate during
LSS’s conservatorship.
Lacey argues that the district court clearly erred because the evidence shows that
LSS mishandled the estate and the final accounting. Lacey does not exp lain how the
evidence supports this claim. Lacking this guidance, we turn to the errors Lacey alleged
during the district court’s hearing and review the record to determine whether the district
court clearly erred by implicitly finding against those error s and allowing the final
accounting.
First, Lacey testified during the hearing that LSS closed some of June’s bank
accounts without accounting for auto -pay bills, leading to late payment of bills, overdraft
fees, delayed Social Security deposits, and the c ancellation of a life insurance policy.
Lacey supported this allegation with two notices for late payments. The final account
shows that LSS paid the two late bills, secured refunds for the only two overdraft fees, and
ensured consistent monthly Social S ecurity deposits throughout the conservatorship,
avoiding any harm to the estate. Lacey did not supply evidence to support her allegation
about the lost life insurance.
Second, Lacey testified that the final accounting incorrectly stated that the estate
owed LSS $3,801.19 in conservator fees, which she claimed she paid LSS before it
submitted the final accounting. She supplied the auditor’s report indicating an outstanding
$3,801.19 fee, and images of a check in that amount to LSS dated December 8, 2018.
LSS’s representative admitted that LLS received the check and that the auditor’s report
incorrectly noted the fee as outstanding. But the representative explained that its final
accounting did not include that fee because Lacey paid the fee from her funds, while the
final accounting reflected transactions of only June’s estate. The check image supports
this testimony because it shows that the check issued from a bank wh ere June had no
accounts in December, suggesting the funds did not come from June’s estate. Furthermore,
the final accounting supports this testimony because it does not list the $3,801.19 fee as
either a debt of the estate or payment from the estate.
Third, Lacey alleged that after she assumed control of the estate assets, she paid
June’s bills for unnecessary expenses incurred by LSS, which the final accounting did not
reflect. She testified that LSS caused “a huge . . . ambulance bill from Woodlands in the
Twin Cities all the way to Frazee,” unnecessary because June lived in the Twin Cities at
the time and Lacey had found a nearby nursing home. She testified, “I was paying those
bills. So the conservator was not paying those bills; I paid those bil ls. You can imagine I
could have bought a house for that ambulance bill alone.” Lacey also complained about
bills for ground and air ambulance transports that were provided for June between her
nursing home in Frazee and a Fargo hospital. Lacey testified that the trip back from Fargo
to Frazee was unnecessary because Lacey had found a nursing home in Fargo. She also
testified that the transport cost was high, and that she, as the new conservator, paid that bill
along with many others:
Well, I had agreed to pay Lutheran Social Services. I had
agreed to pay the attorney, Rolf Nycklemoe. I had agreed to
pay my attorney. I had agreed to pay Heather, my mother ’s
attorney.

I agreed to pay the bills. So basically I paid the bills. And that’s
how everything got paid.

The ambulance bills. And you can imagine the air flight bill
from Detroit Lakes to Fargo. I mean everything. Everything
was paid. As far as medically. And the attorneys were all paid.
And so everything was paid up.

Lacey did not present evidence of the cost of any of those alleged bills or that she paid
them using June’s estate, or explain why they should have been in LSS’s final accounting
of its time as conservator. But in her brief to this court, Lacey alleges that the bills
collectively cost $204,098.46, and left the estate’s accounts nearly completely depleted
after she paid them. No evidence in the record supports these claims.
In response to the allegations that the ambulance trips were unnecessary, LSS’s
representative explained that they moved June from Woodlands to the Frazee nursing home
because the county indicated that, according to its files, June resided in Fergus Falls. The
Frazee nursing home was the nearest nursing home to Fergus Falls that would accept June,
and LSS wanted June to be close to her home. LSS only learned that June had moved to
St. Paul after LSS moved her to Frazee. LSS’s representative also testified that no nursing
homes in the Fargo area would accept June, necessitating the trip back from Fargo to
Frazee. LSS’s representative further explained that the final accounting covered only
deposits, debts, and payments during LSS’s emergency conservatorship, not those after
Lacey’s assumed control of the estate’s assets. For that reason, any payment of June’s
medical transport bills or other bills by Lacey during the time that she was the conservator
would not be included in LSS’s final accounting.
Fourth, Lacey alleged that LSS overpaid the Frazee nursing home in the amount of
$5,110. Lacy claimed that while the Fr azee nursing home had refunded $1,872 of this
amount, it was insufficient and that LSS should pay back the remaining amount to the
estate. Lacey presented no evidence to corroborate this allegation or otherwise explain
why the Frazee nursing home owed an additional refund. LSS’s representative testified
that the nursing home, not LSS, bore responsibility for any refund to the estate and that
Lacey, as the new conservator, could seek any refund due from the nursing home.
Based on this record, Lacey failed to prove that any of these alleged errors by LSS
undermined the accuracy of the final accounting. The district court did not clearly err by
finding the final account accurate.
Besides the errors Lacey alleged to the district court, Lacey now argues that LSS’s
testimony could not support the final accounting. To the extent she argues that LSS’s
testimony was not credible, we defer to the district court’s discretion to assess credibility.
Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). Also, Lacey p oints to nothing in
the record to support this argument. To the extent Lacey argues that LSS’s testimony failed
to factually support the final accounting, we note that the district court raised no concerns
that required LSS to prove the accuracy and propr iety of the accounting. See Doyle, 778
N.W.2d at 347, 51 . Also, the district court had evidence in the form of LSS’s initial
inventory and final accounting, and the auditor’s report verifying the accuracy of the final
accounting based on a thorough review of the estate’s financial records. Lacey’s argument
fails on this record.
Because Lacey alleges only that the final accounting was inaccurate , and we reject
those arguments, we need not address whether any transactions in the final accounting were
unreasonable uses of the estate’s assets.
Affirmed.