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

• The case involves a dispute over the payment of attorney fees to the former counsel of John F. J. II, an adult incapacitated person. The Petitioner, appointed as the guardian and conservator of the protected person's estate, challenged the reasonableness and propriety of the attorney fees claimed by the former counsel. The district court ordered the Petitioner to pay the requested fees in full, leading to this appeal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner/Conservator/Guardian-Appellant: Argued against the reasonableness and propriety of the attorney fees claimed by the former counsel for the protected person.
• Counsel for John F. J. II: Sought substantial attorney fees for services rendered to the protected person and opposed the Petitioner's challenge to the fees.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ordering the Petitioner to pay the former counsel's requested attorney fees in full without a meaningful review of their reasonableness.
• Whether Rule 1-059 NMRA barred the Petitioner’s request for review of the requested attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order concerning the payment of attorney fees to former counsel and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, found that the district court erred in its application of Rule 1-059 NMRA and in failing to conduct a meaningful review of the reasonableness of the attorney fees requested by former counsel. The appellate court observed that the order of May 26, 2023, did not fully dispose of the attorney fee award issue, as it did not specify the amount and allowed for objections from the Petitioner (paras 3-4). The court further noted that determining the amount of an attorney fee award is a collateral matter within the district court's jurisdiction even after a final order has been entered (para 3). The appellate court also highlighted recent developments in the law that allow for fees to be awarded to independently retained attorneys, subject to scrutiny and the impact on the protected person's estate (paras 5-6). The court concluded that the district court did not evaluate former counsel’s requested fees in light of these factors and that a more thorough review was warranted (para 7). The appellate court rejected former counsel’s suggestion that the Petitioner failed to preserve the matters for consideration on appeal, emphasizing that the request for review was sufficiently clear and timely (para 9). The appellate court declined to provide narrow and specific instructions for the proceedings on remand, leaving it to the district court's discretion (para 9).