Opinion
No. 105,786.
2012-06-1
In the Matter of the CONSERVATORSHIP OF Floyd BOGNER.
Appeal from Harvey District Court; Joe Dickinson, Judge. Arlyn Miller and Myndee M. Reed, of Martindell Swearer Shaffer Ridenour LLP, of Hutchinson, for appellant Juanita Silvey. David F, Holmes, appellee pro se.
Appeal from Harvey District Court; Joe Dickinson, Judge.
Arlyn Miller and Myndee M. Reed, of Martindell Swearer Shaffer Ridenour LLP, of Hutchinson, for appellant Juanita Silvey. David F, Holmes, appellee pro se.
Before LEBEN, P.J., MALONE and BRUNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEBEN, J.
While attorney David Holmes was acting as the conservator and managing the assets of an elderly person, Floyd Bogner Sr., Holmes paid attorney fees to himself from the conservatorship without providing notice to interested parties and getting specific court approval. The district court approved Holmes' final accounting—and thus the fees paid to him—because it thought Holmes could have assumed he was authorized to pay fees to himself without further court approval based on language used when the court appointed Holmes conservator. In its order, the court said Holmes “shall be entitled to compensation ... at his [regular] hourly fee.”
But the district court has no authority to let an attorney pay fees to himself without providing notice to interested parties and getting specific court approval; both are required by statute. Moreover, while Holmes was paying fees to himself in advance, he was paying only part of the costs being incurred by Bogner's guardian to provide physical care for him. Because the district court lacked authority to tell Holmes that he could pay himself without following statutory procedures and because Holmes' payments under these circumstances breached his fiduciary duties, we must reverse the district court's approval of Holmes' fees and accounting and send the matter back to the district court for further consideration under the proper standards.
Factual Background
For the last 7 years of his life, Floyd Bogner Sr.'s financial affairs were managed by a conservatorship. Its administration was never smooth or easy; the district court entered judgment against the first conservator based on his failure to collect debts owed to Bogner's estate, and that matter reached the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment against the conservator. In re Conservatorship of Bogner, No. 102,275, 2011 WL 2135152 (Kan.App.2011) (unpublished opinion).
Attorney David Holmes became the last of several appointed conservators on January 5, 2007. The case now before us concerns disputes over the work he did—and primarily over the fees he paid himself for doing that work.
Holmes had previously represented two of Bogner's adult children, Wanda Meier and Floyd Bogner Jr., in this same matter and was involved in trying to identify a conservator before being appointed himself. In December 2006, the district judge suggested Holmes as a potential conservator: “I'll tell you, Mr. Holmes who I don't think is—has any interest in the case, did tell me that he has done that kind of work just in the passing.” According to the letter appointing Holmes, the district court called Holmes “to inquire if he would still be willing to act as conservator, and he indicated he would.” As conservator, Holmes controlled the distribution of Bogner's funds after 2007. In the order appointing conservator, prepared by Holmes, the district court ordered, among other things: “It is the further finding and order of this court that David F. Holmes shall serve without bond and shall be entitled to compensation for his services at his regularly hourly fee as of January 1st, 2007.”
Juanita Silvey, one of Bogner's adult children, objected to Holmes' appointment in December 2006. Silvey had a history of past disputes with Bogner's other adult children. Conservatorship of Bogner, 2011 WL 2135152, at *2–3. In March 2007, Bogner's guardian ad litem filed a motion to reconsider Holmes' appointment, citing Holmes' previous representation of two of Bogner's children and Holmes' filing for personal bankruptcy as reasons to remove Holmes. In May 2007, however, the district court denied the motion to reconsider Holmes' appointment.
Disputes developed between Silvey and Holmes over payments Silvey requested be made to her, which were mostly for the out-of-pocket expenses she incurred in obtaining nursing care for Bogner. Holmes didn't pay her what she requested, and meanwhile he paid himself fully for attorney fees—even paying those fees in advance—without any prior notice or specific court approval.
Silvey, who had been appointed guardian in 2006, moved Bogner from a nursing facility back to his residence so he could live out his life at home. Silvey provided 24–hour care for Bogner in his home for approximately 15 months and hired nurses to care for him when she wasn't available. Silvey indicated that she incurred $86,444.89 in out-of-pocket expenses, including that of the nurses hired to provide care when Silvey couldn't.
Silvey submitted a request that her actual expenses be reimbursed. But Holmes said there was an agreement that he would pay her $4,000 per month for Bogner's care; Silvey denied that. In total, Holmes paid Silvey $24,101.30 in four payments made in July, September, and December 2007.
Much earlier, in May 2007, the district court had noted that Silvey's expenses were already about $40,000. At that hearing, the court stated that Silvey shouldn't have to “advance the operation of her father's care on her own money if we can avoid that, obviously.” In October 2007, Silvey submitted a further reimbursement request for $49,958.96 to Holmes. In November 2007, the court ordered Holmes “to determine immediately” Silvey's expenses that should be reimbursed and “pay such amount to Juanita Silvey.” In December 2007, Holmes paid Silvey $10,000. In the accounting Holmes filed later with the court, he noted the payment was for October, November, and half of December. In February 2008, Holmes told the court he hadn't yet determined the amount still owed to Silvey.
Meanwhile, Holmes paid himself $38,615 in conservator fees from conservatorship funds. Holmes made 10 payments to himself between February 2007 and August 2009. Holmes didn't seek or obtain prior court approval before paying himself, and 9 of the 10 were paid in advance of work being completed, resulting in a credit balance for the conservatorship's account with Holmes' law office. Five of the payments resulted in a credit balance of more than $6,000, and the credit balance reached $9,901.90 in September 2007. Three of the payments—totaling $12,000—were made after Holmes was ordered to pay Silvey in November 2007. Two of those payments—totaling $7,000—were made after Bogner's death in February 2008.
For the convenience of the reader, we have attached as an appendix to this opinion a chronological listing of all the payments (and receipts) Holmes showed in his final accounting of his handling of the conservatorship's funds. Payments to Holmes are in bold and payments to Silvey are in italics. Holmes never submitted a complete inventory of Bogner's property.
Holmes has justified some of his recordkeeping difficulties by a series of unfortunate events that took place at his office, which was damaged by tear gas in February 2009 and destroyed by fire in March 2009. In February 2010, Holmes filed his only accounting, covering the period from January 2007 to December 2009. Holmes didn't file annual accountings for 2007 and 2008 and attributed that failure to his own mistake and to the damage to his office.
Silvey filed an objection to Holmes' request for the district court to approve his accounting. Her objection included a memorandum alleging Holmes had breached his fiduciary duties. Silvey asked that the district court disapprove Holmes' accounting, find that Holmes breached his fiduciary duties as described by statute, and require Holmes to return excess fees. Silvey's filing included exhibits challenging Holmes' billing, copies of correspondence detailing what she believed was owed her, and other documents showing unpaid debts. Silvey challenged 33 of Holmes' billing entries, totaling $4,092.15, as being unnecessary expenses. Lloyd Bogner, another of the adult children, also filed a motion for nonapproval of the accounting.
Holmes' response defended his practice of paying himself in advance by terming it a “retainer” allowed to attorneys by the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. He also stated that the conservatorship wasn't harmed by his failing to file annual accountings in 2007 and 2008, and he claimed that he hadn't received notice from the court that the accountings were due.
In a letter ruling, the district court approved the accounting and found no breach of fiduciary duty. The court stated that Holmes “felt he had prior authorization from the court to pay himself” because of the court's order of appointment that stated that Holmes “ ‘shall be entitled to compensation for his services at his [regular] hourly fee” at the time of his appointment. The court also found Holmes' fees reasonable.
Silvey filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing primarily that the court misapplied Kansas law by condoning Holmes paying himself without application to the court. The district court denied the motion in a further letter ruling. In upholding the approval of the accounting, the judge stated: “Mr. Holmes, however, obviously understood he had prior approval for fee payments, and I feel some responsibility for my statement directing that Mr. Holmes was entitled to compensation for his services at his [regular] hourly fee. There was enough ambiguity in my statement that I cannot rule Mr. Holmes was without judicial authority for payment.”
Silvey has appealed to this court.
Analysis
The District Court Erred in Approving the Payment of Holmes' Fees in Their Entirety Because Holmes Clearly Breached His Fiduciary Duties.
Silvey raises several potential issues in her appellate brief, but they unite around whether the district court properly approved Holmes' accounting. We conclude that the district court was wrong to do so.
First, the district court had no authority to allow Holmes to pay fees to himself without providing notice of his claims to interested parties, having a court hearing at which parties could object, and getting specific court approval. Those steps are required by statute. See K.S.A. 59–1717 (fiduciaries, including conservators, “may apply to the court for an allowance” to pay compensation or attorney fees); K.S.A.2011 Supp. 59–3086(a) (conservator may file a petition requesting a hearing for the purpose of obtaining an allowance).
The district court seemed to feel some responsibility for Holmes' failure to follow these statutory provisions, and the court said that the “ambiguity” in its statement that Holmes “shall be entitled to compensation ... at his [regular] hourly rate” was such that the court could not “rule Mr. Holmes was without judicial authority for payment.” But the district court had no power to authorize that payments be made to Holmes from conservatorship funds without the statutorily required notice and hearing. See Sowers v.. Pollock, 112 Kan. 599, 601, 212 P. 103 (1923) (holding that judgment of probate court may be treated as a nullity if it acts outside its powers); In re Guardianship of K.M.W., 13 Kan.App.2d 640, 646, 777 P.2d 1274 (1989) (holding that probate court order obtained without giving the statutorily required notice is void). And rather than excusing statutory noncompliance, the district court “has an affirmative duty and obligation to carefully scrutinize the activities of the conservator and to make corrective orders when necessary.” In re Conservatorship of McRoy, 19 Kan.App.2d 31, 35, 861 P.2d 1378 (1993).
Second, the failure to provide notice and a hearing was significant here because it's clear that Holmes violated his fiduciary duties to the conservatorship. He did so when he chose how to prioritize claims against the conservatorship—consistently giving the highest priority to his own claims without providing notice and the opportunity for a hearing at which the priority of claims could be challenged.
Let's consider the payments Holmes made to himself during the time period that Silvey was seeking reimbursement for expenses she was incurring for Bogner's physical care. By law, Silvey wasn't legally obligated as Bogner's guardian to use her own financial resources for his support. K.S.A. 59–3075(c). As of the May 2007 court hearing, the district court noted that Silvey's expenses were about $40,000; Holmes paid her $10,000 on July 26 and $4,000 on September 17. On October 8, 2007, she submitted a written request to Holmes for reimbursement of $49,958.96; Holmes paid her another $10,000 on December 12.
Meanwhile, Holmes made six separate payments to himself after the May court 2007 court hearing—all without notice, a court hearing, or specific court approval. During the period of time from March 2007 through June 2008, Holmes paid himself entirely in advance of doing the work for which he was paid; during that period, there was always a credit balance on the account, according to Holmes' records. In September 2007, while Silvey was seeking reimbursement from the estate for out-of-pocket expenses she'd already incurred, Holmes had been paid $9,901.90 in advance on work that he had not yet performed. As conservator, Holmes had a duty to pay reasonable charges for the conservatee's care and to pay his debts. K.S.A. 59–3078(b)(l)–(2).
One who acts as a fiduciary may not handle the fiduciary role in a way that works to the fiduciary's advantage. See Kline v. Orebaugh, 214 Kan. 207, 210–11, 519 P.2d 691 (1974); Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 543 (2d ed. 1993 & 2011 Supp.). Here, Holmes gave higher priority to the payment of his attorney fees than to the payment of the costs of providing physical care to Bogner, whose interests are paramount in allocating the remaining conservatorship assets. While the payment to Holmes of reasonable fees could be justified—and approved by the court—with notice and a hearing, the court could not authorize him to pay unearned fees in advance. At a time when other clearly important claims were being made on conservatorship funds, Holmes violated his fiduciary duty to the conservatorship by placing first priority on payments to himself without providing notice, giving others a chance to be heard, and seeking court approval.
Given our conclusion that (a) the district court had no authority to tell Holmes that he could pay his attorney fees from conservatorship funds without court approval and (b) Holmes breached his fiduciary duty to the conservatorship by paying himself without following the statutorily required procedures, it follows that the district court erred in approving Holmes' accounting. From the record, it appears that the basis for the district court's ruling was its conclusion that Holmes had relied upon a reasonable belief that the district court had authorized him to pay his fees without further court approval, and that cannot serve as a proper, lawful basis for the approval of Holmes' accounting.
In our analysis so far, we have reviewed matters independently, without giving any deference to the district court. We have done so because we have considered only questions of law—the interpretation of the applicable statutes and whether a breach of fiduciary duty occurs under a set of undisputed facts. See Becker v. Knoll, 291 Kan. 204, 212, 239 P.3d 830 (2010); In re Conservatorship of Chapman, 36 Kan.App.2d 730, 740, 144 P.3d 771 (2006), rev. denied 283 Kan. 931 (2007). But we have gone as far as we can go merely by saying that the district court erred in approving the accounting; we cannot determine as a purely legal matter what happens next.
When we send this case back to the district court, the proceedings are back to the point at which that court must consider whether to approve Holmes' accounting. Under K.S.A.2011 Supp. 59–3086(e), it may do so only if it finds, “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that the accounting is accurate, the administration was “appropriate,” and the conservator's fees are “reasonable.” These are decisions to be made in the first instance by the district court, upon notice to—and with an opportunity to be heard by—all interested parties.
In approving the accounting, after saying that there was “enough ambiguity” in the court's original appointment of Holmes that the judge could not say that Holmes was without judicial authority to pay himself without further court action, the judge then refused to give further consideration to who should have been paid: “I am not going to retroactively adjust or reallocate legitimate expenses of the estate, even though, had I known the estate's fees were dwindling to the point of depletion, I may or may not have prioritized payments differently than Mr. Holmes.” That justification is not adequate—the court is simply relying upon the mistaken view that it could have authorized Holmes to pay himself without further court approval. Because the court had no such authority, Holmes could not rely upon any ambiguity in the court's order of appointment to confer that authority.
What's required on remand is that the district court must carry out the role given it under K.S.A.2011 Supp. 59–3086(e) to determine whether the conservatorship administration was appropriate, the accounting was accurate, and Holmes' fees were reasonable. The court must provide some explanation for its ruling, and we note that when the reasonableness of an attorney-fee award is being determined, the court usually should consider the factors set forth in Rule 1.5 of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 470). There is no indication in our record that the district court considered any of these factors. If some or all of the fees should not have been paid to Holmes, the court has authority to order funds repaid to the conservatorship. K.S.A. 59–3089(d); see Conservatorship of Bogner, 2011 WL 2135152, at *6–7.
In this appeal, Silvey urged us to consider the findings made in an attorney discipline case against Holmes, a case in which Holmes lost his license in part for his work on this conservatorship. In re Holmes, 293 Kan. 478, 264 P.3d 423 (2011). We have not done so; our review must be limited to the record before us. See Edwards v. Anderson Engineering, Inc., 284 Kan. 892, 895, 166 P.3d 1047 (2007). On remand, however, the district court's options are not so limited. It may “[a]t any time” order a conservator to appear before the court if it appears that the conservator has failed to carry out his or her statutory duties. K.S.A. 59–3089(a). At such a hearing, the court then has “the authority to receive all relevant and material evidence” that may be offered, even if an accounting has previously been approved or allowed. K.S.A. 59–3089(b).
We do not believe that we need to address any other matters that were raised in the parties' appellate briefs. For example, Silvey contended that Holmes failed to meet several of his other statutory duties (such as the duty under K.S.A.2011 Supp. 59–3083(a) to file annual accounting reports). But we have already concluded that the district court's approval of Holmes' accounting must be set aside, and Silvey is free to raise before the district court any claims she has that Holmes' administration of the conservatorship was not appropriate, that his accounting was not accurate, and that his fees were not reasonable. There is some discretion in the consideration of these issues, and that discretion must be exercised by the district court.
The district court's judgment approving the conservatorship accounting filed by Holmes, including the approval of the attorney fees paid to him, is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appendix
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Date ¦Transaction ¦Amount ¦Balance ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦1/29/07 ¦Initial Deposit ¦$53,364.21 ¦ ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦1/31/07 ¦Bank of America Interest ¦$0.07 ¦$53,364.28 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/5/07 ¦Floyd Bogner, Jr. ¦$8,860.00 ¦$62,224.28 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/5/07 ¦Holmes Law—Co nservator ¦-$3,115.00 ¦$59,109.28 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/8/07 ¦Service Charges ¦-$60.00 ¦$59,049.28 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/8/07 ¦Jay Sizemore—Attorney/GAL ¦-$2,930.00 ¦$56,119.28 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/8/07 ¦Tom Arnbold—Attorney Fees ¦-$2,374.97 ¦$53,744.31 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/12/07 ¦Mike Robinson—Conservator/GAL ¦-$1,451.12 ¦$52,293.19 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/28/07 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$4,500.00 ¦$47,793.19 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦3/5/07 ¦NCS Health KS—Supplemental Ins ¦-$95.60 ¦$47,697.59 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦3/6/07 ¦Holmes Law—Co nservator ¦-$3,500.00 ¦$44,197.59 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦3/13/07 ¦Floyd Bogner, Jr. ¦$5,000.00 ¦$49,197.59 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦3/26/07 ¦Floyd Bogner, Jr. ¦$3,880.00 ¦$53,077.59 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦3/27/07 ¦Richard Greever—Attorney ¦-$2,024.00 ¦$51,053.59 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦4/6/07 ¦Service Charges ¦-$5.95 ¦$51,047.64 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦4/24/07 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$1,500.00 ¦$49,547.64 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦5/10/07 ¦J. Silvey ¦$60.00 ¦$49,607.64 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦5/23/07 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$1,500.00 ¦$48,107.64 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦6/20/07 ¦Mike Robinson—Conservator/GAL ¦-$50.00 ¦$48,057.64 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦6/20/07 ¦Harvey Co–Real Est. Tax ¦-$2,686.03 ¦$45,371.61 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦6/25/07 ¦Golden Plains ¦-$2,293.25 ¦$43,078.36 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦7/13/07 ¦US Treasury ¦$1,622.80 ¦$44,701.16 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦7/23/07 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$7,500.00 ¦$37,201.16 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦7/26/07 ¦Juanita Silvey—Conservator Care ¦-$10,000.00 ¦$27,201.16 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦8/17/07 ¦US Treasury ¦$1,622.80 ¦$28,823.96 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/6/07 ¦Juanita Silvey—Conservator Care ¦-$101.30 ¦$28,722.66 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/10/07 ¦Floyd Bogner, Jr. BB Farms ¦$8,860.00 ¦$37,582.66 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/13/07 ¦US Treasury ¦$1,622.80 ¦$39,205.46 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/13/07 ¦Jay Sizemore—Atty/GAL ¦-$2,781.90 ¦$36,423.56 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/17/07 ¦Juanita Silvey—Conservator Care ¦-$4,000.00 ¦$32,423.56 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/18/07 ¦Dillons Pharmacy—Prescriptions ¦-$324.71 ¦$32,098.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/20/07 ¦US Treasury ¦$4,460.00 ¦$36,558.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/27/07 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$5,000.00 ¦$31,558.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦10/15/07 ¦NCS Health KS—Supplmental Ins ¦-$154.77 ¦$31,404.08 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦10/19/07 ¦Fesler Tax Service—2006 Taxes ¦-$175.00 ¦$31,229.08 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦11/20/07 ¦US Treasury State of KS ¦$1,697.80 ¦$32,926.88 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦11/23/07 ¦Pleasant View—Health Care ¦-$2,696.90 ¦$30,229.98 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦12/5/07 ¦Bank of America—Petty Cash ¦-$100.00 ¦$30,129.98 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦12/12/07 ¦US Treasury ¦$1,622.80 ¦$31,752.78 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦12/12/07 ¦[Juanita] Silvey—Floyd Bogner Exp.-Oct., Nov., Dec. 1/2 ¦- ¦$21,752.78 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦$10,000.00 ¦ ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦1/10/08 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$5,000.00 ¦$16,752.78 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦1/16/08 ¦Bank of America—Petty Cash ¦-$115.00 ¦$16,637.78 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/6/08 ¦Health Equip—Wheel Chair ¦-$1,679.13 ¦$14,958.65 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/8/08 ¦US Treasury [Juanita Silvey] ¦$3,372.20 ¦$18,330.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦7/16/08 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$3,500.00 ¦$14,830.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/17/08 ¦Charge Back—Returned Check from [Floyd] Bogner[,] Jr. ¦-$4,430.00 ¦$10,400.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦9/17/08 ¦Service Fee (returned check) ¦-$5.00 ¦$10,395.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦8/28/09 ¦Holmes Law—C onservator ¦-$3,500.00 ¦$6,895.85 ¦ +----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦ ¦2/13/10 ¦Mike Robinson—Conservator/GAL ¦-$37.50 ¦$6,858.35 ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+