Conservatorship of Chilton

• Decision Date: 25 May 1970
• Parties: In the Matter of the Conservatorship of T. Marie Dunbar CHILTON, Conservatee. James J. ARDITTO, Appellant, v. SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, Temporary Conservator of Estate, Respondent, T. Marie Dunbar Chilton and William A. Chilton, Temporary Conservator of Person, Respondent. Civ. 35391.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 860

86 Cal.Rptr. 860

8 Cal.App.3d 34

In the Matter of the Conservatorship of T. Marie Dunbar CHILTON, Conservatee.

James J. ARDITTO, Appellant, v. SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, Temporary Conservator of Estate, Respondent, T. Marie Dunbar Chilton and William A. Chilton, Temporary Conservator of Person, Respondent.

Civ. 35391.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 25, 1970.

James J. Arditto, in pro. per.

Latham & Watkins by Arne S. Lindgren, Los Angeles, for respondent Security Pacific National Bank.

Kindel & Anderson, Malcolm George Smith, Los Angeles, for respondent Chilton.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner James J. Arditto, an attorney, sought to recover fees from Security Pacific National Bank, conservator of the estate of T. Marie Chilton, for services rendered to Mrs. Chilton between 20 June 1968 and 5 February 1969. The trial court refused to award him fees in addition to the fee of $1,000 he had been awarded for services to Mrs. Chilton between 31 July 1968 and 13 November 1968, and he appeals. The findings and conclusions of the trial court, several of which are attacked by petitioner as lacking support in the evidence, adequately disclose the circumstances of this case:

'1. Security Pacific National Bank is the duly appointed and acting Temporary Conservator of the Estate of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, having been so appointed by proper order of this court on or about June 12, 1968, and this fact was at all times well known to petitioner James J. Arditto.

'2. Petitioner James J. Arditto is an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California.

'3. William A. Chilton is the duly appointed and acting Temporary Conservator of the Person of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, having been so appointed by proper order of this court on February 5, 1969.

'4. Petitioner James J. Arditto, prior to June 10, 1968, was introduced to Bruce Dickerson Stevens by a friend and substantial client of James J. Arditto.

'5. Bruce Dickerson Stevens (hereinafter Mr. Stevens) put petitioner Arditto in contact with T. Marie Dunbar Chilton (hereinafter Mrs. Chilton) on or about June 20, 1968. At a meeting with Mr. Stevens, petitioner Arditto and Mrs. Chilton, held on or about June 20, 1968, petitioner Arditto agreed to attempt to terminate the then existing conservatorship of the Estate of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton.

'6. Mrs. Chilton, in the fall of 1968, was 85 years of age.

'7. On or before July 29, 1968, petitioner Arditto received a copy of the Findings and Conclusions and Order of Judge Walter C. Allen, dated June 6, 1968, appointing the Security Pacific National Bank as Conservator of the Estate of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton. Petitioner Arditto reviewed this document and specifically noted therefrom that Mr. Stevens was not related to Mrs. Chilton; that Mrs. Chilton is likely to be imposed upon by artful and designing persons; that Mrs. Chilton through the time of the trial of the conservatorship petition had been under the domination and undue influence of Mr. Stevens in that his will and wishes had been wholly substituted for the free and voluntary choices of Mrs. Chilton in numerous instances, including the execution of a Power of Attorney, the dismissal of Mrs. Chilton's accountants and attorneys of long standing, the execution of a substitution of attorneys, and the securing of numerous checks drawn by Mrs. Chilton, some of which were payable to entities controlled by Mr. Stevens and some of which paid for certain expenses of Mr. Stevens. Petitioner Arditto also noted the Finding related to Mr. Stevens' efforts to open a checking account at the Union Bank in connection with an attempt to transfer substantially all of the balance of Mrs. Chilton's checking account to that bank from the Security Pacific National Bank. In addition, petitioner Arditto noted the Finding that Mrs. Chilton is very forgetful and is unable to recall matters pertaining to her business and financial affairs, is unable to concentrate on important business and financial matters and that she does not investigate matters which are important to the preservation of her assets.

'8. At no time did petitioner Arditto investigate the background of Mr. Stevens nor did he investigate the basis for any of the Findings made by Judge Walter C. Allen on June 6, 1968.

'9. Petitioner Arditto drafted a written retainer agreement, dated July 31, 1968, purporting to retain him as Mrs. Chilton's attorney for the purpose of initiating proceedings to terminate the existing conservatorship of her Estate. Petitioner Arditto delivered this agreement to Mr. Stevens on or about July 29, 1968, and Mr. Stevens presented the same to Mrs. Chilton for her signature. Mr. Stevens later re-delivered this agreement, purportedly signed by Mrs. Chilton, to petitioner Arditto. Petitioner Arditto was not present at the time said retainer agreement was allegedly executed by Mrs. Chilton. Mr. Stevens obtained the signature of Mrs. Chilton through imposition and undue influence.

'10. On July 31, 1968, Mrs. Chilton was not able to enter into a contract and did not have the capacity to handle her business affairs.

'11. Petitioner Arditto was informed, on or about August 20, 1968, of Mrs. Chilton's lack of capacity, as aforesaid.

'12. At no time did petitioner Arditto request this court to examine and approve the aforesaid written retainer agreement.

'13. During the period of June 20, 1968, through February 5, 1969, petitioner Arditto had numerous meetings with Mrs. Chilton. Mr. Stevens was present at all of these meetings.

'14. At no time did petitioner Arditto advise Mrs. Chilton to terminate her relationship or association with Bruce Dickerson Stevens.

'15. During the aforesaid meetings, Mrs. Chilton advised petitioner Arditto that she had executed a holographic will. Petitioner Arditto never requested that he be given a copy of this holographic will, although at many of the aforesaid meetings the subject of the estate plan of Mrs. Chilton was discussed.

'16. A copy of the formal will executed by Mrs. Chilton on April 15, 1967, was delivered to petitioner Arditto by Mr. Stevens prior to November 20, 1968.

'17. Petitioner Arditto made certain notations on a copy of said will among which was a notation that Mr. Stevens was to receive a gift of approximately $50,000.00 cash and Mrs. Chilton's home. Also, petitioner Arditto noted that Mr. Stevens was to be one of two trustees of a foundation to be created to dispose of Mrs. Chilton's Estate after her death. These notations on the will were made prior to November 20, 1968.

'18. Petitioner Arditto was informed, prior to November 20, 1968, of the intention of Mr. Stevens and Mrs. Chilton to marry. At no time did petitioner Arditto discuss with Mrs. Chilton the subject of a pre-nuptial agreement.

'19. On or about November 21, 1968, petitioner Arditto received from Mr. Stevens a certificate of a purported marriage resulting from a purported ceremony between Mrs. Chilton and Mr. Stevens which took place in or near Las Vegas, Nevada on November 20, 1968. Petitioner Arditto placed the said certificate in his office safe.

'20. At no time did petitioner Arditto advise Mrs. Chilton of the provisions of the law regarding the rights of a spouse who is not provided for in a will executed prior to a marriage.

'21. Prior to February 6, 1969, petitioner Arditto at no time informed Security Pacific National Bank (the Conservator of the Estate of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton) nor its attorneys, Latham & Watkins, nor this court, of the purported marriage of Mrs. Chilton and Mr. Stevens, although the following opportunities existed, among others, for such a disclosure:

'(a) A meeting on December 12, 1968, at petitioner Arditto's office at which he, together with Mrs. Chilton, Mr. Stevens and representatives of Security Pacific National Bank and the law firm of Latham & Watkins were present.

'(b) A meeting on January 7, 1969, at Mrs. Chilton's residence at which petitioner Arditto, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Chilton and representatives of Security Pacific National Bank were present.

'(c) Certain objections in the above-entitled cause were prepared by petitioner Arditto, dated January 24, 1969, and filed with this court purportedly on behalf of Mrs. Chilton and signed in two separate places by her as Mrs. Chilton.

'(d) A hearing on January 31, 1969, before Judge Arthur K. Marshall on the above-noted objections in which petitioner Arditto participated.

'22. At no time prior to February 6, 1969, did petitioner Arditto inform William A. Chilton, the step-grandson of Mrs. Chilton, of the said marriage.

'23. Petitioner Arditto has represented Mr. Stevens in the avove-referenced cause and also in the following cases pending in this court:

'(a) Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of the State of California v. Little Kids Church, Inc., a California nonprofit charitable corporation, and Bruce D. Stevens, et al., L.A.Super.Ct. Case No. 941,794;

'(b) T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, by William A. Chilton, her Conservator, and T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, individually, v. Bruce Dickerson Stevens and Does I--XX, L.A.Super.Ct. Case No. D--742,957; and

'(c) William A. Chilton, as Conservator of the Person of T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, and T. Marie Dunbar Chilton, by William A. Chilton, her Conservator v. Bruce Dickerson Stevens and Does I--XX, L.A.Super.Ct. Case No. 947,482.

These court proceedings, with the exception of the Lynch case referenced above, all affect the interests of Mrs. Chilton and petitioner Arditto's representation of Mr. Stevens has been inimical to Mrs. Chilton's interest and to her Estate in these cases.

'24. The action and interest of Mr. Stevens in the above-referenced cause and the other lawsuits noted above in which petitioner Arditto represented Mr. Stevens are motivated by the desire of Mr. Stevens for personal gain and profit at the expense of Mrs. Chilton and her Estate and the interests of Mr. Stevens and Mrs. Chilton...