• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 8/30/2021 3:16 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk, By Arianna Smith, Deputy Clerk 1 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP MATHEW S. ROSENGART (SBN 255750) ([email protected]) 2 ERIC V. ROWEN (SBN 106234) ([email protected]) SCOTT D. BERTZYK (SBN 116449) ([email protected]) 3 LISA C. MCCURDY (SBN 228755) ([email protected]) MATTHEW R. GERSHMAN (SBN 253031) ([email protected]) 4 JANE H. DAVIDSON (SBN 326547) ([email protected]) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Tel: 310-586-3889 6 Fax: 310-586-7800 7 Attorneys for Conservatee Britney Jean Spears 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 11 12 In re the Conservatorship of the Person and Case No. BP108870 Estate of 13 Hon. Brenda J. Penny, Dept. 4 BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS, 14 CONSERVATEE BRITNEY SPEARS’S Conservatee. SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR 15 SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL OF JAMES P. SPEARS AS CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE 16 PURSUANT TO PROBATE CODE SECTION 2650(j) 17 Date: September 29, 2021 18 Time: 1:30 PM Dept: 4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL 1 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 1. Britney Spears established in her July 26, 2021 Verified Petition for Suspension and 4 Removal of James P. Spears (the “Petition”) that Mr. Spears’s suspension and removal were mandated 5 under Probate Code Section 2650(j) because, as a matter of law, this relief is “in the best interests of” Ms. 6 Spears. Separately, this relief is also in the interests of justice. 7 2. As the Petition also demonstrates, Section 2650(j) does not require Mr. Spears to admit 8 fault or wrongdoing. Rather, although Mr. Spears has for more than a decade evidently engaged in 9 abusive and bullying conduct while also elevating his own personal and financial interests above those of 10 his daughter, these issues of misconduct are not, at this time on this Petition, before the Court. 11 3. The only question before the Court—which has, unfortunately, been lost for years—is 12 whether Mr. Spears’s prompt suspension and removal are in best the interests of Britney Spears. Based upon (i) the forceful and compelling June 23 and July 14, 2021 testimony of Britney Spears herself; (ii) 13 the sworn Declaration of Conservator of the Person Jodi Montgomery, which includes her testimony that 14 “I have had numerous, ongoing conversations with the medical team and we all agree that it would be 15 best for Ms. Spears’ well-being and mental health that her father stop acting” as conservator, that “it is 16 my strong opinion and recommendation that the persons serving as Ms. Spears’ conservators not be 17 family members,” and that “Mr. Spears’ removal . is critical to [Britney Spears’s] emotional health 18 and well-being and in the best interests of the conservatee” (underlined emphasis in original);1 (iii) the 19 Verified Joinder of Ms. Montgomery; (iv) the Declaration and Verified Joinder of Interested Party Lynne 20 Spears; and (v) the fact that Ms. Spears will not work or perform unless and until Mr. Spears is removed 21 (thereby depriving the Estate of income even as Mr. Spears and others are, perversely, being enriched 22 from it), the unequivocal answer is yes. 23 4. This conclusion, which we respectfully submit is now clearly inexorable, is further 24 supported by fundamental principles of law (that were completely ignored by Mr. Spears and his attorney 25 26 1 See Declaration of Jodi Montgomery, dated July 22, 2021, at ¶¶ 5-7. Similarly, during the July 14, 27 2021 hearing, Ms. Montgomery’s counsel confirmed, unambiguously, that it has been a “strong recommendation by the medical team, that Mr. Spears, her father, needs to be off of the 28 conservatorship.” (July 14, 2021 Hearing Transcript at p. 47) (all emphases added). 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL 1 in their “First Response”) mandating Mr. Spears’s suspension and removal. See, e.g., Cal. Probate Code 2 § 1800; Quasi-Judicial Immunity in Conservatorships: A Guide for Conservators and their Counsel, 3 California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, Vol. 22, Iss. 2, 2016 at p. 45. (“Embedded within the statutory 4 framework are consistent admonitions that the conservator must always act in the best interests of the 5 conservatee”); see also #FreeBritney and a Look at How California Conservatees May Challenge Their 6 Conservators, Aug. 30, 2020 (“The overarching theme of section 2650 is to ensure that the conservator 7 prioritizes the interests of the conservatee”); A Review of Whether the Conservatee Should Continue To 8 Pay The Attorney Fees of Feuding Parties, 52 U. Pac. L. Rev. 963, 967 (“The purpose of the 9 conservatorship is to fight to protect the conservatee’s interests rather than gain control over the 10 conservatee”). Further, as the Judicial Council’s Handbook for Conservators provides, “The position of 11 conservator is one of great trust and responsibility. The court and the conservatee are trusting you to 12 follow the law and to act in the conservatee’s best interests. You should make choices that . are in the conservatee’s best interests.” (Handbook for Conservators 2016 Revised Edition, Judicial Council of 13 California at p. 1-2.) 14 5. In short, as this Court so aptly stated during the July 14, 2021 hearing in referencing the 15 need to focus on the interests of Britney Spears, “it’s not about anybody else, it’s about her.” (July 14, 16 2021 Hearing Transcript at p. 53.) Mr. Spears should heed those words. 17 6. Against this backdrop, Mr. Spears’s and his counsel’s August 12, 2021 “First Response” 18 is shameful. Although Mr. Spears concedes that a “battle with his daughter over his continuing service” 19 would not be in her best interests (thereby effectively acknowledging that his departure must be 20 imminent), Mr. Spears spends the overwhelming majority of his brief engaging in inappropriate attacks 21 and finger-pointing. In trying to defend himself, he also looks back 13 years, improperly discussing his 22 daughter’s “mental health issues” while outrageously suggesting he should be “thanked.” The thrust of 23 his response is that although (i) he expressly recognizes that a “public battle” regarding his departure 24 would not be in Ms. Spears’s best interests and (ii) for that reason, he even intends to support “an orderly 25 transition,” his idea of “orderly” is to hang on until someone first brands him “father of the year” and 26 awards him a gold star for his “service.” In other words, although Mr. Spears has, at last, been forced to 27 28 3 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL 1 recognize that it is best for his daughter if he departs now, he claims the right to drag his feet because it 2 is best for him to cling to this conservatorship until he feels sufficiently-vindicated. 3 7. Mr. Spears’s and his counsel’s “First Response” is also based upon a complete 4 misunderstanding of the law, because his prior service as conservator is legally-irrelevant under Section 5 2650(j)’s “best interests” test. Moreover, by once again elevating his interests over his daughter’s, it also 6 demonstrates why Mr. Spears must resign or be suspended no later than September 29, 2021. 7 Additionally, the “First Response” supports Ms. Spears position that any legal fees incurred by Mr. 8 Spears in connection with that “Response” (or any future “Response”) should not come from Ms. 9 Spears’s estate. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Lefkowitz (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1316-1317 10 [conservator’s attorneys’ fees to oppose petition for removal incurred “to defend [conservator’s] 11 character and reputation” were not payable from the conservatee’s estate].) 12 8. Further and critically, while Mr. Spears professes his purported “love” and “support” of his daughter even as he stripped her of her autonomy and dignity and engaged in abusive conduct toward 13 her, his First Response reveals his true motivations: to receive or make large monetary payments under 14 the “pending Twelfth Account,” as a quid pro quo, including: 15 • Payment to Mr. Spears—from Ms. Spears—for working with his lawyer to address 16 “public, media, and social media attention,” such as reading “major television and news 17 articles, social media posts, global media inquiries, and documentary films;” 18 • Payment to Mr. Spears—from Ms. Spears—for “continu[ing] to do my best to keep 19 current regarding the music, advertising and entertainment business . ”2 20 • Compensation—from Ms. Spears—of $1,356,293 in attorneys’ fees to Holland & Knight 21 from October 17, 2020 to June 30, 2021, including an exorbitant and obviously- 22 unacceptable $541,065.50 for “Media Matters.” (Supplemental Declaration of Vivian L. 23 Thoreen, Jul. 12, 2021, at pp. 1-2, 6-8); and 24 • Payment to Tri-Star Sports & Entertainment Group—from Ms. Spears—of an exorbitant, 25 post-hiatus $500,000. 26 27 2 See Declaration of James P. Spears, dated July 12, 2021, at ¶ 3, 13. 28 4 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL 1 9. Further, although Mr. Spears’s counsel purport to chastise Ms. Spears’s current counsel 2 for supposedly failing to recognize that they and Ms. Spears’s prior counsel were “in negotiations,” they 3 neglect to mention that those “negotiations” were unacceptable and unsuccessful. 4 10. Regardless of the past, Mr.

Load more

  12

Copy Link