‘Superior Court of Calfomie, County of Los Angsles 2/2021 6.43 PM Sheet R. Cater, Execitve Officed/Cietk, By J. Manjver, eputy Clark 1] SAMUEL D. INGHAM IIT State Bar #66279 Law Offices of Samuel D. Ingham III P.O, Box 241 Ojai, California 93024-0241 Telephone: (310) 556-9751 (310) 556-1312 sam@inghamlaw.com BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS, Conservatee 2 3 4 5 6] Court-Appointed Counsel For 7 8 SUPERTOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 u In the Matter of the No. BP 108 870 Conservatorship of the Person 12] and Estate of CONSERVATEE’S RESPONSE TO: 13 OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER BY CO-CONSERVATOR JAMES P. cs SPEARS BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS, 15 Assigned To: Judge BRENDA J. PENNY 16 Department: 4 Hearing Date: 2/11/2021 7 Time: 1:30 p.m. Calendar #: 5002 Conservatee. Conservatee, BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS ("BRITNEY"), hereby responds to the “NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO SAMUEL D. INGHAM ITI‘S PROPOSED ORDER APPOINTING PROBATE CONSERVATOR” (“The Notice of Objection”) and “CO-CONSERVATOR JAMES P. SPEARS’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER APPOINTING BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY AS CO-CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE” (“the Supplemental Objection’ as follows: } For convenience, this pleading will refer to members of the SPEARS family by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 1 Tor+ Appointment of Counsel By Order dated February 1, 2008, SAMUEL D. INGHAM III was appointed by this Court to serve as counsel for the conservatee, BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS. He has not been discharged and continues to serve in that capacity. + Bgecedural Background At the hearing on November 10, 2020, BRITNEY’s petition to appoint BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, N.A. (*BESSEMER TRUST”) as co-conservator of the estate ("The Appoint- ment Petition”) was granted by stipulation. No objections to the Appointment Petition were filed and no argument against the Appointment Petition was made at the hearing. A copy of the Minute Order dated November 10, 2020 is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference. As directed by the Court, Counsel for BRITNEY filed and served a proposed “ORDER APPOINTING PROBATE CONSERVATOR” (the “Proposed Order”) on December 11, 2020. The Proposed Order as served and filed is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference. It has been affirmatively approved as to form and content by all appearing counsel other than those representing JAMES. JAMES subsequently filed the Notice of Objection and the Supplemental Objection (collectively referred to as “The Objec- tions”), 3. Proposed Order Tracks The Appointment Petition One would expect an attorney order to reflect the relief requested in the petition. Such was the case here: the 2Proposed Order tracks the Appointment Petition. It also tracks the Probate Notes, which were expressly relied on by the Court in making its rulings. The Probate Notes are attached as Exhibit “Cc” and incorporated by this reference. Remarkably, the Objections complain because the Proposed Order fails to reflect additional material not mentioned either in the Appointment Petition or at the hearing: namely, the “ORDER: 1) ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF CO-CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE; 2) APPROVING TRANSITION AGREEMENT; 3) CONFIRMING SOLE CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE WITH STATED CONDITIONS; 4) RELEASING AND DISCHARGING SURETIES ON EXISTING BONDS; 5) SETTING BOND FOR SOLE CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE” dated on March 5, 2019 (“the 2019 order”). This argument is absurd on its face. The Appointment Order naming a new co-conservator of the estate is inherently inconsistent with the prior order appointing JAMES to act alone. 4. Appointment Petition Enumerated All Powers The Supplemental Objection states that “the Petition did not seek to modify, nor did the Court's order modify, the powers previously conferred on Mr. Spears.”? This allegation is simply incorrect. As noted above, by its very nature the Appoint- ment Order modified the powers of JAMES. Moreover, the Appointment Petition specifically enumerated all of the powers to be exercised by both JAMES and BESSEMER TRUST. JAMES could have proposed a different allocation of powers between the co-conservators or objected to the proposed powers themselves, but he did not do so. ? Supplemental Objection, page 2, lines 11-12Cmrnanneun Therefore, Court granted the powers and their allocation between the co-conservators exactly as requested by BRITNEY. 5. Qbjections Would Eviscerate Appointment The Supplemental Objection argues that “accordingly, the Proposed Order should be modified to address only BESSENER TRUST, leaving the powers to be exercised by Mr. Spears as established in the 3/5/19 Order.” Were the Court to adopt this peculiar suggestion, BRITNEY would have two conservators for her estate operating under two different orders with inconsistent powers. It is difficult to imagine a better recipe for conflict between the co-conservators and confusion with both BRITNEY and third parties. Ultimately, the appointment of BESSEMER TRUST would be rendered meaningless. 6. Investments ‘The Supplemental Objection argues that JAMES should retain the power to: delegate the sole responsibility of selecting, investing in and monitoring the particuler investment vehicles for the conservatorship assets, as well as the strategies utilized in the investment of the assets of the conserva~ torship in accordance with the prudent investor rule and the conservative portfolio allocations of the Conserva~ torship assets to professional investment advisors as set forth in prior orders of this Court dated September 8, 2010, October 8, 2010, November 18, 2010, February 10, 2011, March 29, 2013 and March 11, 2014 (collectively, "The Investment Orders") .* “et ? Supplemental Opjections, page 3, lines 21-23 * Supplemental Objections, page 3, lines 10-14In other words, after the appointment of a highly sophisticated corporate fiduciary with substantial investment expertise, JAMES, as a lay person, would retain the unrestricted power to select (and compensate) his own “professional investment advisors” separate and apart from BESSEMER TRUST. Moreover, those advisors would be forced to operate under investment parameters dating back more than ten years. Once again, this result simply makes no sense. The Appointment Petition was drafted to give JAMES and BESSEMER TRUST, acting together, the power to develop an investment plan appropri- ate under current market conditions, which are surely very different from the ones prevailing in 2010. It would be highly detrimental to BRITNEY’s interests and directly contrary to the relief granted in the Appointment Petition for the Court to allow JAMES to arrogate the investment power to himself. 7. Surety Bond Perhaps the least comprehensible argument in the Objections is that the Proposed Order “should provide that Mr. Spears’ surety is released, discharged and exonerated, as the 3/5/19 Order provided for sureties being exonerated at that time. There will be a substantial annual savings to the Estate by releasing the bond." Objections are presently pending before this Court with respect to JAMES’ Twelfth Account Current, and he hasn't even filed his Thirteenth and Final Account. Needless to say, his surety bond as sole conservator of the estate can’t be exonerated * Supplemental Objections, page 4, lines 18-21 5eer anneun 10 Wt 2 13 4 Is 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 unless and until all of his accountings have been approved. 8. Denial Without Prejudice Of Other Relief Finally, the Objections argue that the Proposed Order be modified to reflect the Court's denial without preiudice of BRITNEY’s requests for orders suspending JAMES and requiring the estate to be delivered to BESSEMER TRUSTS. These rulings are not Properly included in the Proposed Order because they were merely interim decisions, subject to being revisited by BRITNEY or by the Court on its own motion at any time. Including them in the Proposed Order serves no useful purpose. Worse, it would require that the Proposed Order be amended at some time in the future were that relief to be granted. 9 Genclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, the Objections should be overruled and the Proposed Order signed as filed. Dated: February BD, 2021 Respectfully submitted, EL D. (ING! r * Supplemental Objection, page 4, line 22 through page 5, line 6 Tasca RESPONSE 10: OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER