In re Grijalva; Judith del Cuadro-Zimmerman

── In re Grijalva; Judith del Cuadro-Zimmerman ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-PR-0868 IN RE ESTATE OF DORA ALICIA GRIJALVA; JUDITH DEL CUADRO-ZIMMERMAN, APPELLANT. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-ADM-000353) (Hon. Leslie A. Meek, Trial Judge) (Submitted March 11, 2026 Decided April 23, 2026) Judith del Cuadro-Zimmerman for appellant. Before EASTERLY and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and GLICKMAN, Senior Judge. EASTERLY, Associate Judge: Attorney Judith del Cuadro-Zimmerman served as the guardian and conservator for Dora Alicia Grijalva for several years before Ms. Grijalva’s death, after which Ms. del Cuadro-Zimmerman became a creditor of Ms. Grijalva’s estate for alleged “unpaid [expenses] . . . for work performed while serving as [g]uardian/[c]onservator.” Based on her creditor status, Ms. del Cuadro- Zimmerman sought to be appointed as the personal representative of Ms. Grijalva’s estate in March 2024. See D.C. Code § 20-303(a)(1)(J) (directing that the trial court  2 “shall . . . appoint personal representatives . . . according to the following order of priority” and then listing as tenth “the largest creditor of the decedent who applies for administration”). She now appeals the Superior Court’s July 2024 denial of her petition on the ground that her status as a creditor presented a conflict of interest. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand. In ruling on Ms. del Cuadro-Zimmerman’s March 2024 petition, the Superior Court appeared to determine that Ms. del Cuadro-Zimmerman was categorically ineligible to serve as the personal representative of Ms. Grijalva’s estate. Although the court acknowledged Ms. del Cuadro-Zimmerman’s reliance on D.C. Code § 20-303(a)(1)(J), the court determined that she had disregarded the court’s directive in a prior order “to ‘seek the appointment of a disinterested member of the Bar’ on any subsequently filed petition.” 1 Citing D.C. Code § 20-702 for the proposition that a personal representative serves “[a]s a fiduciary . . . [with] a duty to take all 1 The court issued this directive in its August 2023 order denying an earlier petition for appointment based on the court’s concern that Ms. del Cuadro- Zimmerman had failed to show that Ms. Grijalva had been domiciled in the District. In its January 2024 order denying reconsideration of its August 2023 order, however, the court appeared to retract its determination that Ms. del Cuadro-Zimmerman’s status as an “interested” creditor was an impediment to her petition. See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration at 1 (acknowledging that Ms. del Cuadro- Zimmerman “may qualify for appointment as she is the largest creditor of the [e]state” pursuant to D.C. Code § 20-303(a)(1)(J), but concluding that its concerns about Ms. Grijalva’s domicile had not been sufficiently addressed).  3 steps necessary to protect and preserve the estate in the personal representative’s possession,” the court stated that “a potential conflict of interest arises from a creditor serving as Personal Representative because proper administration of the Estate may conflict with the interests of the creditor.” The court further observed that “[t]he possible conflict of interest arising from a creditor administering estate assets is only exacerbated and complicated when the creditor was formerly tasked with being the decedent’s guardian and conse