Conservatorship of the Estate of You Wei Dong - Case Brief

Case Number: A169579
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three
Date Filed: August 15, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that while the trial court properly approved CSC Fiduciaries’ settlement of the personal‑injury claim, it erred in refusing to consider the appellant’s claim for reasonable GAL reimbursement; the matter was remanded for the trial court to determine the appropriate fees and expenses.

Narrative

A California appellate panel addressed a tangled probate‑litigation dispute arising from the estate of You Wei Dong, a severely brain‑injured worker who died in 2019. The central question was whether the trial court correctly allocated the settlement proceeds of Dong’s personal‑injury lawsuit and whether the former guardian‑ad‑litem, Zehui Li Yen, was entitled to reimbursement for her GAL services.

Procedural backdrop. In March 2021, the San Francisco Superior Court appointed Yen as both conservator of Dong’s person and estate and as GAL in his workers’‑compensation and subsequent personal‑injury actions. After a workers’‑compensation settlement that included an $80,000 payment to Yen, the estate’s finances became the focus of a contested accounting. Yen’s first accounting sought more than $800,000 in fees and reimbursements, prompting the appointed counsel and a court‑appointed investigator to allege conflicts of interest under Probate Code §1820(c) and to request Yen’s removal as conservator. In December 2022 the court suspended Yen, installed CSC Fiduciaries, Inc. (CSC) as successor temporary conservator, and froze Dong’s settlement accounts.

CSC then filed a petition for approval of compromise of the pending personal‑injury claim. Yen objected, not to the settlement amount, but to the petition’s failure to (1) purchase two annuities for Dong, (2) place the residual balance in a blocked account, (3) award her GAL fees, and (4) reimburse her out‑of‑pocket expenses. After a hearing, the trial court approved the settlement, ordered the funds deposited in an interest‑bearing account under CSC’s control, removed Yen as GAL, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Yen appealed.

Issues presented.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to order the settlement proceeds be used to purchase annuities or be placed in a blocked account.
Whether the ex‑parte removal of Yen as GAL violated due‑process requirements.
Whether Yen is statutorily entitled to reimbursement of reasonable GAL fees and expenses.

Court’s analysis.

GAL authority versus conservator control. The appellate court reaffirmed that a GAL’s role is limited to litigating on behalf of an incapacitated person; it does not extend to fiduciary management of estate assets once a conservator is appointed. Citing 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6th ed. 2025) and In re Marriage of Caballero (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1139, the court explained that under Code of Civil Procedure §372(a)(3) a GAL may settle a claim, but the disposition of settlement proceeds is governed by Probate Code §§3602(b) and related provisions. Accordingly, the trial court was not required to defer to Yen’s preferred allocation of funds.

Discretion to order annuities or blocked accounts. Probate Code §3602(c)(1) permits a court, for “good cause,” to direct funds into a single‑premium deferred annuity; §3602(c)(2) allows placement in a blocked account under Probate Code §2456. The appellate panel applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard (see Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939) and found that CSC presented legitimate concerns—potential management costs, logistical complications of overseas withdrawals, and lack of evidence of mismanagement by CSC. No “good cause” was shown to justify the annuities or blocked account, so the trial court’s decision fell within the permissible range of options.

Removal of the GAL. The court noted that California probate law provides no substantive or procedural rule governing GAL removal (see Chui v. Chui (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 929). CSC’s ex‑parte application satisfied the statutory requirements for showing irreparable harm, as articulated in Newsom v. Superior Court (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093. Because the settlement approval terminated Yen’s functional role, any alleged due‑process violation was deemed harmless.

Reimbursement of GAL expenses. The pivotal error, the appellate court held, lay in the trial court’s refusal to apply Probate Code §§3600 and 3601, which are incorporated by reference in Code of Civil Procedure §372. Those sections expressly authorize reimbursement of “reasonable expenses” to a GAL from settlement proceeds. The court cited Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, emphasizing the broad discretion courts possess to determine reasonableness and allocation of such expenses. Accordingly, the appellate panel remanded for the trial court to evaluate Yen’s claim for GAL fees and out‑of‑pocket costs, excluding attorney fees already addressed.

Disposition. The appellate court reversed the dismissal with prejudice, affirmed CSC’s settlement approval, and remanded for determination of Yen’s GAL reimbursement claim. All other aspects of the trial court’s order were left intact, and each party was taxed with its own costs on appeal.

Implications. This decision clarifies the separation of duties between a GAL and a conservator in California probate‑litigation, reinforcing that settlement‑fund allocation rests with the conservator unless a conservator‑or‑guardian demonstrates “good cause” for alternative treatment. Moreover, the opinion re‑affirms that Probate Code §§3600‑3601 apply to GALs appointed under Code of Civil Procedure §372, ensuring that GALs may recover reasonable expenses from settlement proceeds. Practitioners should now anticipate that objections to fund allocation must be grounded in the statutory “good cause” language and that reimbursement claims should be expressly pleaded under the Probate Code to avoid dismissal.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§3600, 3601, 3602, 2456, 2400 – reimbursement of GAL expenses; court authority to order annuities or blocked accounts.
Code of Civil Procedure §372(a)(3) – settlement of claims involving incapacitated persons; incorporation of Probate Code Chapter 4.
Probate Code §1820(c) – conflict‑of‑interest prohibition for conservators who are creditors.
Evidence Code §§452, 459 – judicial notice (cited in the appeal).

Key Cases Cited

In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236 – standard for “willful disobedience” in disentitlement.
In re Marriage of Caballero (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1139 – limits on GAL authority.
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939 – abuse‑of‑discretion review.
Chui v. Chui (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 929 – lack of procedural provisions for GAL removal.
Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378 – scope of Probate Code §3601 reimbursement authority.
Newsom v. Superior Court (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093 – requirements for ex‑parte relief.
Safai v. Safai (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 233 – role of GAL as representative of record.
Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836 – waiver of unsubstantiated arguments.