In the Matter of the Guardianship of N.R., N.R. v. Eva Willis and Charles Reagins, Peoples Bank, SB, 26 N.E.3d 97

In January 2012, 81-year-old N.R. executed a general power of attorney appointing his daughter Nelva Berry to manage his affairs.
On June 25, 2012, N.R.’s niece (Eva Willis) and nephew (Charles Reagins) filed an emergency petition and the court—without advance notice or a hearing—appointed them temporary co-guardians of N.R.’s person and estate.
Berry and another relative later petitioned and objected; by agreement Willis and Charles resigned, the Bank was appointed temporary guardian of the estate, and Berry and Monique Wilson were ultimately appointed permanent co-guardians in November 2012.
The trial court approved fee petitions: Willis/Charles’ attorney fees and costs (~$15,207.55) and the Bank’s guardian/attorney fees (~$7,784.70), and ordered payment from N.R.’s estate.
At a March 19, 2013 hearing N.R. sought to introduce evidence that Willis and Charles engaged in misconduct (changing locks, diverting mail, adding themselves to accounts, etc.) and that the emergency appointment was improper; the trial court excluded that evidence and denied N.R.’s objection.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the excluded evidence was relevant to whether the fees were necessary and whether the temporary guardians acted in good faith; it remanded for the trial court to hear the evidence and reconsider fee awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that former temporary guardians’ misconduct made the guardianship improper and fees unnecessary	N.R.: the excluded evidence showed Willis/Charles caused or created the emergency and therefore fees were unnecessary and not recoverable from the estate	Willis/Charles: fees were reasonable and already awarded; evidence about misconduct was irrelevant to fee amount	Reversed — court abused discretion by excluding evidence; remand for hearing on whether fees were necessary and reasonable
Whether the Bank’s fee award should stand given possible impropriety of earlier temporary guardianship	N.R.: if Willis/Charles acted in bad faith, Bank’s fees should not be charged to the estate and any recovery should come from those responsible	Bank: provided services as temporary guardian and is entitled to reasonable compensation from the estate	Reversed — remand to reconsider Bank’s fee petition; if temporary guardianship was improper, Bank’s compensation may be chargeable to Willis/Charles rather than the estate

Malachowski v. Bank One, Indianapolis, N.A., 682 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 1997) (attorney-fee entitlement depends on reasonable necessity for the litigation)
In re Guardianship of Shaffer, 711 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (factors for fee awards: reasonableness/good faith, disputed facts, complexity, and misconduct causing proceedings)
In re Guardianship of Hollenga, 852 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review — guardianship orders are discretionary)
In re Des.B., 2 N.E.3d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for exclusion of evidence)