## Facts

- After her husband’s death in June 1985, Helen M. Kocemba became confused and depressed, and relatives believed she could not manage her personal and financial affairs.
- Helen entered a nursing home in fall 1985.
- In December 1985, a court found Helen incapacitated and appointed her niece, Luana Webster, as general conservator of Helen’s person and estate.
- Helen and Webster later clashed over Helen’s desire to leave the nursing home and return home; the conflict expanded into broader family discord and litigation.
- In June 1986, Helen petitioned to remove Webster and also filed a voluntary petition requesting appointment of a successor conservator.
- At an August 1986 hearing, two physicians testified Helen had dementia and depression, with severely impaired recent memory, and could not live independently; Helen presented no medical testimony disputing this.
- The court directed a social-services agency to assess potential alternatives; it reported Helen could not live alone but could live at home with another person.
- In December 1987, the trial court removed Webster, found Helen remained incapacitated, and appointed a neutral third party, Jerome G. Raidt, as successor general conservator.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior adjudication of incapacity remains effective, such that the court may reaffirm incapacity when the conservatee files a voluntary petition for appointment of a successor conservator absent proof of restored capacity.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by removing the existing conservator and appointing a neutral successor conservator based on the conservatee’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that Helen remained incapacitated.
- The court held the prior incapacity adjudication continued in force unless Helen proved restoration of capacity, and her voluntary petition did not eliminate the need for an incapacity determination supporting an ongoing conservatorship.
- The court affirmed Webster’s removal and the appointment of a neutral successor, concluding the record supported the trial court’s determination that the change served Helen’s best interests.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s weighing of expert and lay testimony and its discretionary judgment on conservator removal.

## Legal Principles

- A prior adjudication of incapacity supporting a conservatorship continues until the conservatee affirmatively proves restoration of capacity.
- A voluntary petition seeking a successor conservator does not make capacity findings unnecessary; an ongoing conservatorship must rest on statutory conditions, including incapacity.
- Expert medical testimony may be credited over lay observations when determining incapacity, and appellate review generally defers to the trial court’s credibility and factfinding absent clear error.
- A trial court has broad discretion to remove a conservator and appoint a successor when doing so is in the conservatee’s best interests, including when persistent conflict impairs administration and a neutral appointment is likely to reduce discord and better address appropriate living arrangements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the continued conservatorship because the conservatee did not prove restored capacity, and it sustained removal of the family-member conservator where ongoing conflict and living-placement disputes supported a neutral successor appointment as serving the conservatee’s best interests.


In re Conservatorship of Kocemba, 429 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)