## Facts

- Emma Jane Hester, age 76, was widowed and had historically relied on her husband to handle family finances.
- After her husband’s death, Emma lived with her son Glen, who operated a used car business from her yard and had access to a joint bank account with her.
- Emma’s property fell into severe disrepair, including unrepaired hurricane-related damage and unsanitary conditions, despite receipt of disaster-relief funds.
- David Hester, another son, attempted to assist with basic needs and upkeep, but Emma opposed his involvement and barred him from her home.
- David petitioned to be appointed conservator of Emma’s person and estate under Mississippi law.
- Medical evidence included a physician’s view that Emma could manage “most” affairs but was uncertain about finances, and a psychologist’s opinion that Emma had memory deficits and could not competently manage financial affairs.
- A guardian ad litem reported that Emma had never been capable of managing her finances.
- At the hearing, Emma could describe daily self-care but could not explain withdrawals from the joint account benefitting Glen and was unaware of past-due bills.
- The chancery court found Emma incapable of managing her financial affairs and appointed David conservator of her person and estate; it also entered a pretrial order restricting disposition or transfer of Emma’s assets during the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the finding that Emma was incapable of managing her estate and the appointment of a conservator were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the conservatorship decree was invalid for failure to comply with statutory requirements governing conservatorship decrees.
3. Whether the pretrial order restricting Emma’s asset transfers was an injunction that violated Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

## Decision

- Affirmed the appointment of David as conservator of Emma’s person and estate.
- Held the chancellor’s incapacity finding was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
- Held the decree substantially complied with statutory conservatorship requirements; any technical defects did not invalidate it.
- Held the pretrial asset-transfer restriction was a permissible protective order within chancery authority to preserve the property at issue and did not require strict Rule 65 injunction formalities.

## Legal Principles

- A conservator may be appointed for a person who, due to advanced age, physical incapacity, or mental weakness, is incapable of managing their estate; a formal adjudication of legal incompetence is not required.
- Appellate review of chancery findings is deferential; findings are disturbed only if manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or based on an erroneous legal standard.
- Evidence supporting inability to manage finances may include expert testimony, guardian ad litem recommendations, and demonstrated confusion about accounts, bills, and unexplained transactions.
- Chancery courts have equitable authority to preserve the status quo and protect the property subject to litigation in conservatorship matters, including restricting transfers to prevent dissipation pending adjudication.
- Substantial compliance with conservatorship-decree statutes is sufficient when the order identifies the incapacity finding, the conservator appointed, and the scope of authority in a manner that fulfills statutory purposes.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conservatorship because the record supported that Emma’s age-related mental weakness and demonstrated financial confusion rendered her unable to manage her estate, the decree sufficiently satisfied statutory requirements, and the temporary restriction on asset transfers was a proper chancery measure to protect the property during the proceedings.


In re Conservatorship of Hester, 989 So. 2d 986 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)