Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Talking About Conservatorships Without Breaking The Ban


I have received lots of e-mails about the current proceedings in regards to she who shall not be named. Without mentioning her name, lets take a minute and talk about conservatorships. For the sake of clarity, lets call our subject BS. I know some of you don't really know much about conservatorships, but honestly, you can get a much more elementary definition of one somewhere else other than here. This is what fascinates me legally about this case, and something which happened which is very rare.

The first thing you need to know about anything is that a person can do whatever the hell they want with their money and their life as long as they are competent to do so. You might think that your 80 year old dad is crazy for spending millions on the 22 year old hooker he met in Vegas, but unless he is crazy the court isn't going to stop dear old dad from blowing his millions. Yes, someone might come on here and say something about him being influenced and yada yada yada. Yes, it is in the code, but it is not reality.

Therefore that brings us to BS. She can do whatever the hell she wants with her money and do whatever the hell she wants to do to herself. The only chance you have is to have someone declare her incompetent or get her to check into a mental facility on her own. Voila. They talked her into it. Now comes the very rare part.

The way it works with conservatorship hearings in LA is this. If there is an emergency you file an ex-parte application with the court and 99.999999999999999% of the time the court schedules a hearing for within 5 days of the application. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time they deny the temporary conservatorship until AFTER this hearing within 5 days. Why do they deny it? Because the court is taking away the rights of someone and that someone isn't there to say no. You can do a ton of damage in 5 days. In BS' case though, the court said yes, and then set a hearing for a few days later. They said yes. I have NEVER heard a yes until this case. Granted I don't do very many, but it is freaking rare.

Now, during that 5 days you let BS know what is going on, and the court sends out an attorney who is there for the crazy person. Most of the time the crazy person can't afford a lawyer and so the court sends someone out to determine if they are indeed crazy and to make sure they are represented. This is a very quick turnaround. In BS' case I believe it was 3 days, 2 of which were the weekend.

We call the attorney representing the crazy person a PVP attorney. At some point BS hired her own attorney, BUT the report of the PVP attorney will still carry the most weight. The PVP attorney in this case though BS was crazy and so allowed BS' dad and his lawyer to act as temporary conservators of the person and estate. That means they get to be in charge of her medical decisions (person) and money (estate).

A temporary conservatorship generally expires within 90 days, but actually expires at the time of the permanent conservatorship hearing. That hearing is more like a trial and the arguments of the attorneys will be supplemented by the report of a probate investigator. That person normally checks out the house of the conservator (BS' dad) and the living conditions of the conservatee (BS). They want to make sure that the conservatee is not being locked up in the cupboard under the stairs.

At this point BS' dad won't have to account for any money he is spending or anything like that. It will just be a decision whether to keep the Conservatorship in place permanently. When I say permanently, what I mean is until BS can find enough doctors who say she isn't crazy. Then she would ask to have the Conservatorship terminated. At that point she would also ask for an accounting of everything dad did, and attorneys would all clamor for their fees. An accounting would also be required if it lasts longer than a year.

This conservatorship will not last long at all. Courts hate them unless they are totally necessary. BS will find 100 doctors who will testify she is sane. At the very worst what will happen is that it may stay in place, but an independent person would be named conservator. Now I kept using the word crazy, but it can be as simple as a person who doesn't remember what they own or what they have or how to manage it. You usually see that with the elderly. BS isn't old and crazy is much easier to type.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

I dunno...do you think at a time like this, that he'd abuse his conservatorship? As much as I dislike her family, I dont think she's going to find any wild spending sprees on her tab when they tally things up. As exploitative and greedy as they are, it was never Jamie who was the driving force behind it--it was always Lynn.

If he were to spend money on himself and abuse that access, at this point that would be one of the lowest things I've ever heard of....

oxfordshirelady said...

This woman was involuntarily committed for mental evaluation initially and again w/ a 5250. Gravely disabled has significant medical and legal meanings that seem to have escaped this writer's notice. I think someone's been watching Court TV and reading legal blogs. There is no way that this writer is a licensed, practicing lawyer in L.A. or even California.

Anonymous said...

The only one that is going thru a conservatorship is Britney. I was thinking if her family will take advantage and spend her money while they are in control. Wouldn't doubt that unless a freeze is put in her account which I doubt that.

This girl is spiraling down down the gutter. If it's not her divorce, kids, boyfriends, etc.... it's another thing happening in her life which is not good.

Best thing for her is to move out of CA to another state and live a peaceful life. If not next thing we will see is her Obituary.

YahMoBThere said...

Without breaking the ban. Talking about someone w/o naming them is still talking about someone. Five year olds think otherwise.

mooshki said...

Heather, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there's no way Britney qualifies as "gravely disabled." And she was held on a 5150, not a 5250, right?

mooshki said...

Twisted, I think Ent was being tongue-in-cheek. And isn't entertainment gossip always about the level of a 5-year-old? :)

mdd said...

As a non-Hollywood, non-entertainment lawyer, I agree with EL that these types of conservatorships are very difficult to get. In my (limited) experience, courts don't like handing over control of an adult's estate to someone else, especially that of an adult under the age of 80.
Just my .02

jax said...

a 'nice extended vacation out of LA' is not going to help..she's mentally incompetent right now..look up bi polar it's not a feel sad kinda thing.

the doctors treating her listed a gravely disabled, not the press.
i think they mighthave a better
idea on what's best for her than we do.
i highly doubt her father is going to abuse the power..on the contrary they prob wouldnt have done it if it weren't for Osama.
stop pointing fingers and let the girl get the help she needs.
oh just my .02 lol.

YahMoBThere said...

Mooshki, I would like to think that engaging in entertainment gossip is at the level of a twelve year old, myself. Okay, ten year old. Eight?

Yeah, he's being tongue in cheek, because he continues to post about people we're sick of hearing about and have asked him to stop posting about. Like there aren't enough messes out there to fill the blog. In fact, he could gossip about us. There are enough messes in here, too...lol.

surfer said...

twisty - I luvs ya, but I just gotta say this. In Ent's defence, I think he was just trying to acknowledge/address the fact that he had received so many e-mails about the BS' situation (conservatorship), he decided to explain the process, rather than gossip about her per se.


And to mooshki, from my understanding (which may not be saying much), I think initially she was held under the 5150, then classified as gravely disabled. At that point, they decided to keep her longer under the 5250.

captivagrl said...

she has a very serious illness. she should have been treated long ago. everyone should leave her alone.

mooshki said...

Thanks for the clarification, surfer. I still don't buy the "gravely disabled." I really doubt she'd have been given that diagnosis if she was an ordinary person. (In particular, one without health insurance.) Yes, she is seriously mentally ill, but she is not completely unable to take care of herself.

Anonymous said...

I wont disagree that she can take care of herself....at times. But even in her mothers own petition to have a restraining order against Britney, she mentioned that her daughter at times spoke to her like she (Britney) was a very very young child. I'm sure there are times she can care for herself just fine. Its the times she cant that they have to pay attention to, now. She has EPISODES. Thats how bipolarity works.

Anonymous said...

I meant "against Sam Lufti" not "against Britney" sorry folks

YahMoBThere said...

Surfer, I love you, too, hon - and I love EL - I just wish he'd answered the question and ended the post. If nothing else, as others have said, she really needs to be left alone.

mooshki said...

I do know how serious bipolar episodes are (I have two relatives and a friend with the disease) but the legal definition of "not able to take care of yourself" is very different from the lay person's.

surfer said...

Twisty, you're right. As usual. ;)

YahMoBThere said...

Surfer, I'm usually wrong, but thanks...lol. (Psssst....the check is in the mail)

jax said...

start the crazy train up..BS just released from UCLA.

lyz said...

Apparently BS has been released from the hospital. I just don't get that. My sis is BP. Her last manic episode had her hospitalized for 9 days. She was definately having an episode, but not nearly to the degree of BS. Paranoid and not making sense, but not having fits in public, shaving her head stuff. Surely she can't be ready to go home after only a week???

mooshki said...

Lyz, was your sister there voluntarily or involuntarily?

lyz said...

Mooshki,
Well....good question. The police took her there and required that she go, but once they got her there and her husband arrived it may not have actually hit the system as "involuntary". I never thought to ask that question.

Kathy K said...

I was one of the e-mailers, and I appreciated Ent's input.

Heather: what's your point?

TMZ is reporting that BS has been released from the hospital. I can't think of worse news for her if it's true.

mooshki said...

It sounded to me like Britney had her lawyers working nonstop to get her out. I don't think anyone is saying she was actually ready to leave the hospital.

surfer said...

Holy moly, she was released! Both the LA Times and TMZ are reporting this. I don't see how this can be good.

And twisty, I'll be waiting by the mailbox!

jax said...

ridic that she's out..hopefully it is to be transfered somewhere else.

most people don't go from gravely disabled to fine in 5 days.

that girl needs 3 weeks intense daily therapy and then at least 3 months inside a facility.

Lux Luthor said...

Holy shit, they let her out? You have got to be kidding me. There is no way anyone can go from "gravely disabled" to "all better" in one week.

All aboard for the crazy train indeed.

Perez Hilton said...

And all that for fucking lots of guys, contracting HIV, and suffering from AIDs-related dementia

kellygirl said...

I really feel that Shar Jackson and SPF should be co-conservativors

jax said...

yes we're all really impressed with your bullshit comments.

TA said...

If this is an LPS (Lanterman Petris Short Act) conservatorship, BS has a right to a JURY TRIAL and FREE legal representation.

Terri Alvillar/NASGA
http://www.stopguardianabuse.org

Unknown said...

Well...I just stopped by Tmz.com and the first thing I see is: "britney car chase - live" ... wtf?

Sydney Fan said...

I agree with Enty that it is very odd that they obtained the orders they did. System is similar here in Oz and very rare with a yonug person even one with mental illness - needs to show they have done so seriously off the wall shit with their money.I think the only explanation (unless she has been doing some really crazy stuff behind the scenes) is the publicity. The Courts made up its mind fromthe public displays of odd behaviour and Osama and saving her from handing everything to him.

anna said...

britney released? already a car chase? god, this just gets worse... was hoping she'd have enough time at ucla to get a little closer to stability.

depressing.

oxfordshirelady said...

white lorelei your question? My point wasn't difficult to figure out, I clearly said the non lawyer writer here was mistaken, this woman was INVOLUNTARILY committed, doctors legally tagged her gravely disabled and his "analysis" was BS. Not too hard to understand. You know all this drama is not a tragedy - her estate is under conservatorship because she is and has been gravely disabled, she did not hire a lawyer while disabled and putting more web gossip out there that her parents are going to spend her assets in five days is friggin' wrong. Yeah she'll probably have to be reined in but any responsible LEGAL commenter would have at least got the basic facts right. Don't you people have newspapers or network news where you can get bare facts, no gossip, for your info? Do you truly all believe you're qualified to judge a situation with NO facts, just rumors?

anna said...

heather, wait -- are you saying that this is a GOSSIP WEBSITE?

heavens to betsy, i thought this was the 'news hour with jim lehrer'!

d'oh!

writerw$$$$$ said...

bippy CHILL. If you read EL: "I know some of you don't really know much about conservatorships, but honestly, you can get a much more elementary definition of one somewhere else other than here. This is what fascinates me legally about this case, and something which happened which is very rare."

So someone's having a dissenting opinion and expressing it. heather called him out on his legal facts, so what? Kind of silly to attempt to deflect with sarcasm when it basically reads like she's right. It's what makes the posts interesting, to each his own. No need to get defensive duh.

budford said...

Paula Abdul was a pop princess and her online bio talks about americas sweetheart.

liveunderarock said...

Bibby, I thought your comment was funny. :)

I was front and center for no more Britney posts. But to me this is different than reporting on her latest trip to Starbucks. I am interested in what is going on legally. More lawyers giving their opinions here is fine with me.

I think Britney's parents are the only ones who can or even might do the right thing to help her. She simply doesn't have anyone else.

becktaro said...

i'm confused... if Jamie Spears has a conservatorship over Brit's medical decisions, how did she get out? I kinda figured he'd have to ok that...

ablake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ablake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Toni said...

becka - I'd like to know the answer to that 2.

I was one of the peep's e-mailing Ent for info on this. This is not a "look at BS go to the store" but truly some fascinating (to me) court stuff that I didn't completely undertand (nor do I know make the statement that I do know).

Thanks Ent for answering the e-mails. And now...to becka's question - "if Jamie Spears has a conservatorship over Brit's medical decisions, how did she get out? I kinda figured he'd have to ok that..."

Anybody know?? Is all null and void now?

Toni said...

wow...that should have been (nor do I make the statement that I do now)

sorry!!

anna said...

zene, people absolutely should (and do) have dissenting opinions -- that's one of the things that i like about the commenters here.

what isn't so cool, however, is being so blatantly condescending and rude, which is what this sounds like to me:

"white lorelei your question? My point wasn't difficult to figure out... don't you people have newspapers or network news where you can get bare facts, no gossip, for your info? do you truly all believe you're qualified to judge a situation with NO facts, just rumors?"

yes, i know, sarcasm is the lowest form of humor, etc. but heather could have made her point in a way that wasn't so dismissive of the folks on here who were actually trying to have a conversation about the topic...

peace.

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days