AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An adult under guardianship and conservatorship, C.G., was represented by Attorney Robert Richards, who filed an entry of appearance on her behalf. The district court struck Richards' entry, leading to this appeal. The case arose amid concerns about C.G.'s relationships with family members, the involvement of these members in decisions within the authority of C.G.'s court-appointed guardian and conservator, and the relationship between the guardian and conservator. C.G.'s daughter initially petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship, which was granted, appointing separate individuals as guardian and conservator (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 30, 2014: Appointed a plenary guardian and a conservator for C.G., determining C.G. was incapacitated and in need of both guardianship and conservatorship (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Robert Richards): Argued that the district court erred in striking his entry of appearance as counsel for C.G., contending that the guardian had authority to hire him to represent C.G. in proceedings regarding the continuation of her guardianship (paras 1, 23-24).
• Appellee (Michael McEachern, Conservator): Contended that only the conservator had the authority to retain an attorney for C.G. and that the guardian, without such authority, improperly hired Richards. Argued that Richards' representation was contrary to law and without proper authority (paras 20-21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in striking Attorney Robert Richards' entry of appearance as counsel for C.G. on the grounds that the guardian did not have the authority to hire an attorney for C.G. and that only the conservator had such authority (para 23).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order striking Robert Richards' entry of appearance as counsel for C.G. (para 66).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Vanzi, J., held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the guardian and conservator's powers under the New Mexico Uniform Probate Code. The court found that the statutory text did not unambiguously grant the conservator exclusive authority to hire an attorney for the purpose for which Richards was hired, nor did it prohibit the guardian from doing so without pre-approval from the conservator or the court. The court emphasized the broad powers granted to guardians, akin to those of a parent to an unemancipated minor child, and noted the guardian's authority related to the care, custody, or control of the person, not the estate or financial affairs. The court also highlighted the district court's ultimate authority and duty to ensure actions taken in Article 5 proceedings serve the interests of incapacitated and other protected persons. The decision to reverse was based on the conclusion that the guardian had the authority to hire an attorney to represent C.G. in proceedings regarding the continuation of her guardianship, especially in the absence of a guardian ad litem at the initial hearing (paras 40-65).