Colorado Code
Part 4 - Protection of Property of Protected Person
§ 15-14-413. Who May Be Conservator - Priorities - Prohibition of Dual Roles

Source: L. 2000: Entire part R&RE, p. 1815, § 1, effective January 1, 2001 (see § 15-17-103). L. 2009: (1) amended, (HB 09-1260), ch. 107, p. 445, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2010: (1)(b) amended, (SB 10-199), ch. 374, p. 1753, § 19, effective July 1. L. 2011: (6) amended, (SB 11-083), ch. 101, p. 308, § 16, effective August 10. L. 2013: (1) and (3) amended, (SB 13-011), ch. 49, p. 166, § 21, effective May 1; IP(6)(a) and (6)(b) amended, (HB 13-1314), ch. 323, p. 1803, § 27, effective March 1, 2014.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 15-14-410 as it existed prior to 2001.
Cross references: For provisions relating to the time of taking effect or the provisions for transition of this code, see § 15-17-101.
COMMENT
This section gives top priority for appointment to existing conservators appointed elsewhere, to the respondent's nominee for the position, and to the respondent's agent, in that order. Existing conservators are granted a first priority for two reasons. First, many of these cases will involve transfers of a conservatorship from another state. To assure a smooth transition, the currently appointed conservator appointed in this state or another should have the right to the appointment at the new location. Second, many cases may involve situations where a conservatorship appointment is sought despite the appointment in another place. Granting the existing conservator priority will deter such forum shopping. Should the existing conservator be inappropriate for some reason, subsection (c) permits the court to skip over the existing conservator and appoint someone with lower priority or even no priority.
A conservator or individual nominated by the respondent or the agent named in the respondent's durable power of attorney has priority for appointment over the respondent's relatives. The nomination may include anyone nominated orally at the hearing, if the respondent has sufficient capacity at the time to express a preference. The nomination may also be made by separate document. While it is generally good practice for an individual to nominate as conservator the agent named in a durable power of attorney, the section grants such an agent a preference in the absence of a specific nomination. The agent is granted preference on the theory that the agent is the person the respondent would most likely prefer to act. The nomination of the agent will also make it more difficult for someone to use a conservatorship to thwart the agent's authority. To assure that the agent will be in a position to assert his priority, Section 5-404(b) requires that the agent receive notice of the proceeding. Also, until the court has acted to approve the revocation of that authority, Section 5-411(d) provides that the authority of an agent takes precedence over that of the conservator.
Subsection (a)(7) gives a seventh-level preference to a domestic partner or companion or an individual who has a close, personal relationship with the respondent. Note there is no requirement that the respondent have resided with the other person for more than six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition, just that the requisite residency have occurred at some point in time before the petition is filed. Courts should use a reasonableness standard in applying this subsection so that priority is given to someone with whom the respondent has had a close, enduring relationship. For factors to consider in making this determination, see the detailed comment to Section 5-304.
While this section substantially overlaps with Section 5-310, the comparable provision on selection of guardians, there are some differences. For example, Section 5-310 denies a priority to an emergency or temporary guardian, but this section does not expressly deny a priority for appointment to an emergency or temporary conservator appointed in another state. But the failure in subsection (a)(1) to expressly exclude these categories of conservator does not mean that they enjoy a priority for appointment. Unlike the case with guardians, emergency or temporary conservators are not included within the definition of "conservator" found in Section 5-102(1).
Subsection (d) prohibits anyone affiliated with a long-term care facility at which the respondent is receiving care from being appointed as conservator absent a blood, marital or adoptive arrangement. Strict application of this subsection is crucial to avoid a conflict of interest and to protect the protected person from potential financial exploitation. Each state enacting Parts 1-4 of this article needs to insert the particular term or terms used in the state for facilities considered to be long-term care institutions.
National Probate Court Standards, Standard 3.4.11 "Qualifications and Appointments of Conservators" (1993), recognizes that the court should appoint as conservator one who is both willing and suitable to manage the respondent's finances and property, based on the nature of the respondent's estate and the respondent's incapacity. The standard provides a preference in appointment to one known by, related to, or requested by the respondent.
This section is based on UGPPA (1982) Section 2-309 (UPC Section 5-409 (1982)).