KING v. GILBERT

KING v. GILBERT
1998 OK CIV APP 19
955 P.2d 756
69 OBJ 1229
Case Number: 88857
Decided: 02/10/1998
Mandate Issued: 03/12/1998

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF J.C. KING, DECEASED,
ZELMA KING, individually, and BERNICE UNSELL, as Conservator of the Estate of Zelma King, Appellants,
vs.
SHARON GILBERT, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE JAMES H. PADDLEFORD, TRIAL JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Vernon D. Hyde, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellants Unsell and King
Deborah E. Fortune, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellant King,
Anita F. Sanders, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellee.

CAROL M. HANSEN,

¶1 Appellants, Zelma King, individually, and Bernice Unsell, as conservator of the estate of Zelma King, seek review of the trial court's order denying their motion to substitute Unsell, in her capacity as conservator, as a party in place of King in the probate of the estate of King's deceased husband, J.C. King.

¶2 BERNICE UNSELL is hereby appointed as conservator of the estate of Zelma King, a disabled person. From this date forward, the ward shall not have power to contract, except for necessaries.

¶3 The trial court denied the motion to substitute parties without stating its reasons.

¶4 The appointment of guardians and conservators is controlled by the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act (Act),

¶5 Gilbert argues the notice requirements of §3-110 apply to conservatorships because §3-215 provides, "All laws relative to the jurisdiction of the court over the estate of a person under guardianship as an incapacitated or partially incapacitated person . . . shall be applicable to the estate of a person under conservatorship." In applying statutes, we seek to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature as expressed by the plain language of the statute. Curtis v. Board of Educ. of Sayre Public Schools, 1995 OK 119, 914 P.2d 656, 659. Generally, the expression of one thing excludes the other, Atkinson v. Halliburton Co., 1995 OK 104, 905 P.2d 772, 776, and where two statutes conflict, the one addressing a specific situation will control over one of general applicability, Lindsey v. Kingfisher Bank & Trust Co., 1992 OK 66, 832 P.2d 1, 3. Sections 3-110 and 3-211 provide for conflicting notice requirements; the latter addresses a more specific situation than the former, to wit, conservatorship over the property of a consenting person who is not incompetent but is unable because of physical disability to manage his or her own property. The notice requirements of §3-110 do not apply to conservatorships under §3-211. Because Unsell was appointed conservator pursuant to §3-211, notice to Gilbert was not required. Her appointment is valid on its face.

¶6 Pursuant to §3-215, a conservator has the same powers and duties required of a guardian under the Act. A guardian is required to "appear for and represent the ward in all legal suits and proceedings."

¶7 We note that the issue of Unsell's right to joinder under

¶8 The order of the trial court denying the motion to substitute parties is AFFIRMED.

¶9 ADAMS, J., and BUETTNER, P.J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1This appeal is brought pursuant to 58 O.S.1991 §721(10), which provides for appeal as of right for any order in a probate case which affects a substantial right.