Harry Anderson’s Massachusetts conservatorship poses a question that comes up all too often. When the court appointed a conservator to handle his finances precisely because he could not take care of himself, what should be done when the best evidence of his limitations turns out to be the misappropriate of his funds by his conservator before the court even got involved?

Sabrina Vaz, Mr. Anderson’s niece, came to his rescue after another he decided that another niece had taken advantage of him. She helped him invalidate a deed he had signed leaving his home to Carleen Wood, the other niece. She moved Mr. Anderson into her own home, and helped him sign a new will and power of attorney. Then she proceeded to treat his money as if it were already her own, making gifts to herself and her husband and putting his assets into what the court later euphemistically called "improvident investments."

Ms. Wood eventually decided something needed to be done, and so she filed a petition for appointment of a conservator. The Massachusetts probate court eventually appointed Ms. Vaz rather than Ms. Wood, but required that she post a surety bond in the amount of $600,000. Then, when Ms. Vaz couldn’t account for what she had been doing with Mr. Anderson’s money for the previous two years, the court removed her and appointed a new, professional fiduciary in her place.

The new conservator sued Ms. Vaz for her misappropriations, and ultimately secured a judgment of over $400,000. The conservator then turned to the insurance company that had written Ms. Vaz’ bond, seeking the full amount she had taken from Mr. Anderson.

The insurance company argued that it should only be liable for what Ms. Vaz had taken after it signed the conservatorhip bond—and most of the money was gone even before the court got involved. Not so, ruled the court; the order directing Ms. Vaz to post a bond should have put the insurer on notice that there were questions about her management of his money.

The insurance company had a backup argument. Because Mr. Anderson had since died, and his last will left everything to Ms. Vaz, there wasn’t any harm to his estate anyway. Not so fast, ruled the court; Mr. Anderson’s last will was invalid, as he lacked capacity to sign it at the time. The will procured by Ms. Wood was similarly invalid, and Mr. Anderson had died without a valid will.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court largely agreed with the lower court. One point of disagreement: the appellate court increased the judgment against the insurance company by about $50,000, reasoning that Ms. Vaz had a claim against herself to recover every cent she had taken from her uncle. Wood v. Tuohy, September 14, 2006.

Would you like to subscribe to Elder Law Issues? Simply provide your e-mail address and name below, and click "Subscribe". At the same time, you may choose to also subscribe to The Voice, the newsletter of the Special Needs Alliance.

Privacy note: We do not ever use your e-mail address or name for any purpose other than to send out our subscription-based newsletter. You can rest assured that we will not sell, trade or share this information with any other person or entity. We have no ancillary or associated companies or entities to which we could provide your e-mail address, either.

© 1993-2009 Fleming & Curti, P.L.C.
330 N. Granada Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-622-0400 /  FAX: 520-203-0240