Guardianship and Conservatorship of J.G.S., 857 N.W.2d 847

J.G.S., a 90-year-old retired attorney who owned multiple multi-family rental properties, suffered a stroke in 2008 and by 2013 his children alleged declining capacity and mismanagement of properties.
Petitioners (his four children) filed an ex parte petition (Aug 7, 2013) for temporary guardian and conservator; temporary orders were entered and later vacated after a hearing.
On Aug 13, 2013, petitioners filed for permanent/indefinite conservatorship; that day J.G.S. was personally served with a notice of hearing (including the temporary petition attached) and his attorney received the permanent petition electronically.
After a three-day hearing in October 2013, the district court found guardianship unnecessary but appointed a conservator indefinitely, concluding conservatorship was needed to prevent waste and dissipation of estate.
The court relied on family testimony, a neuropsychologist’s evaluation (mild cognitive impairment), evidence of uncollected rents, deteriorating property conditions, inadequate management, and transfers of three properties to a tenant-manager.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had personal jurisdiction via service of process	Petitioners: service of a notice of hearing personally on Aug 13 (with temporary petition attached) satisfied statutory notice requirement under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-29-05(1)	J.G.S.: personal service of the permanent petition and supporting affidavits was required; absence of such service deprived the court of personal jurisdiction	Court held service of the notice of hearing personally (with temporary petition attached) complied with statute; court had personal jurisdiction
Whether conservatorship was warranted (standard and sufficiency of evidence)	Petitioners: clear and convincing evidence showed J.G.S. was under disability, unable to manage property, and property was being wasted/dissipated, so conservatorship was necessary	J.G.S.: previously found competent; evidence did not meet the required showing to appoint a conservator; no convincing basis to remove his control	Court held district court did not clearly err; factual findings supported conservatorship to prevent waste/dissipation (court applied clearly erroneous review and affirmed appointment)

Sanderson v. Walsh Cnty., 712 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 2006) (valid service of process required for personal jurisdiction)
Gessner v. City of Minot, 583 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 1998) (strict compliance with service rules necessary)
Muhammed v. Welch, 675 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2004) (actual knowledge alone insufficient without valid service)
Intercept Corp. v. Calima Fin., LLC, 741 N.W.2d 209 (N.D. 2007) (personal jurisdiction questions are lawfully reviewed)
Estate of Allmaras, 737 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 2007) (purpose of conservatorship statutes to protect property of persons under disability)
Conservatorship of Kinney, 495 N.W.2d 69 (N.D. 1992) (conservatorship statutes’ protective purpose)
Matter of Bo, 365 N.W.2d 847 (N.D. 1985) (distinguishing guardian vs conservator standards)
Estate of Gleeson, 655 N.W.2d 69 (N.D. 2002) (higher burden for guardianship than conservatorship)
Conservatorship of T.K., 775 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 2009) (clearly erroneous standard for reviewing factual findings in conservatorship cases)
Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 694 N.W.2d 212 (N.D. 2005) (burden allocation to protect alleged incapacitated persons)
Guardianship and Conservatorship of Thomas, 723 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 2006) (appellate review standards for findings of fact)