In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.F.
949 N.W.2d 496
Neb.2020Background
- Gerald F. filed to be temporary and then permanent guardian and conservator of minor J.F.; a GAL was later appointed after a competing domestic-abuse protection order raised representation concerns.
- The county court granted Gerald permanent guardianship and conservatorship over Misty B.’s objection.
- The GAL filed an invoice for $10,665.57 for services from July 2018–Feb 2019; the court ordered payment "by the ward’s estate, if the ward possesses an estate; if not, . . . by the petitioner" because Gerald requested the GAL.
- Gerald moved to set aside the fee order (claiming lack of notice) and later argued the court lacked statutory authority to charge him, contending §§ 30-2620.01/30-2643 were repealed or displaced by § 30-4210.
- The county court found J.F. had no estate, declined to make the county pay, and held § 30-2643 authorized assessing GAL fees against the petitioner; Gerald appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gerald) | Defendant's Argument (Holt County / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county court had statutory authority to order Gerald to pay GAL fees in this matter | No statutory authority; § 30-2620.01 applies only to incapacitated-person guardianships and does not authorize charging a petitioner in a minor guardianship; county should pay under § 30-4210 | § 30-2643 (conservatorship/protected person) applies because Gerald also sought conservatorship; if ward has no estate fees may be charged to county or petitioner; county has no interest so petitioner must pay | Court had authority under § 30-2643 to assess GAL fees against petitioner; affirmed |
| Applicability of § 30-2620.01 to this guardianship of a minor | § 30-2620.01 does not apply because it governs incapacitated persons, not minors | County and court: agree § 30-2620.01 is inapplicable | § 30-2620.01 is inapplicable to guardianships for minors |
| Whether § 30-4210 (2016) implicitly repealed or displaced § 30-2643 (1993) | § 30-4210 is later enactment and governs payment for evaluations; it should control or repeal conflicting prior provisions | No repeal by implication; statutes address different things (court-ordered evaluations v. payment of appointed-person fees) and are reconcilable | No repeal by implication; § 30-2643 remains operative and applies here |
| Notice to Gerald of fee application/hearing and challenge to amount | Gerald claimed lack of notice of the fee hearing | Court found notice issue not pressed on appeal and Gerald did not contest reasonableness of fees | Notice/amount objections not preserved on appeal; court did not address them substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Karin P., 271 Neb. 917, 716 N.W.2d 681 (2006) (trial court may apportion GAL fees between petitioning parties)
- In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 838 N.W.2d 262 (2013) (statutory scheme for minor guardianship does not authorize awarding court‑appointed persons’ fees against ward/parties under certain provisions)
- In re Estate of Hutton, 306 Neb. 579, 946 N.W.2d 669 (2020) (principles of statutory construction and allowance of fees)
- Premium Farms v. County of Holt, 263 Neb. 415, 640 N.W.2d 633 (2002) (repeal by implication is strongly disfavored)
- State v. Thompson, 294 Neb. 197, 881 N.W.2d 609 (2016) (guidance on repeal-by-implication analysis)