Opinion
F078959
07-07-2020
Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of E.S. TULARE COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. E.S., Objector and Appellant.
Rachel Lederman for Objector and Appellant. Deanne H. Peterson, County Counsel, and Jason G. Chu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. VPR032550)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. Rachel Lederman for Objector and Appellant. Deanne H. Peterson, County Counsel, and Jason G. Chu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
The Tulare County Superior Court issued a conservatorship order on February 26, 2019, placing E.S. under a conservatorship which by its terms expired one year later. E.S. appealed from this order. The order appealed from having expired, the appeal is moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On February 26, 2019, an order reappointing the Tulare County Public Guardian as the conservator for E.S. was issued by the superior court. Letters of conservatorship over the person and estate of E.S. were issued on February 27, 2019.
E.S. filed a timely notice of appeal of the February 26, 2019 conservatorship order. On appeal, E.S. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conservatorship order. The conservatorship order provided it expired "one-year from the date of this order unless properly renewed."
No order renewing the February 26, 2019, conservatorship order is contained in the appellate record. On April 24, 2020, this court issued an order for supplemental briefing, asking the parties to brief why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Briefing initially was due May 15, 2020, but extended to June 10, 2020. Neither party submitted a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
As a general rule, appellate review is limited to actual controversies; a case that involves " 'only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained. [Citation.]' " (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486.) " ' "[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed." [Citation.]' " (Ibid.) In other words, "[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief." (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 (Cucamongans).) Here, since the order appealed from has expired, and resolving the issues presented would not confer any effective relief to E.S., the matter is moot.
There are three discretionary exceptions to the rule against adjudicating moot claims. A reviewing court may decide an appeal on the merits "(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question remains for the court's determination [citation]." (Cucamongans, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 479-480.)
We are aware of our discretionary authority but decline to exercise it under the circumstances of this case. This case does not present an issue of broad public interest; there is no material question to be determined; and it is not likely the same evidentiary issues might recur in further conservatorship proceedings, if only because the parties submitted no evidence of such proceedings.
"An appeal is moot if the appellate court cannot grant practical, effective relief." (Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 340, 362.) We cannot grant any practical, effective relief to E.S. because the conservatorship order has expired.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.