N.P. v. M.E., 2015 ND 267

M.E., hospitalized after an apparent suicide attempt and financial exploitation, was the subject of emergency and then permanent guardianship and conservatorship petitions filed by her children N.P. and M.N. (Oct–Dec 2014).
The court accepted a letter from Dr. LaWana Burtnett (treating psychiatrist) as the physician’s report and appointed N.P. and M.N. as co-guardians and co-conservators (Dec 2014).
The guardianship order allowed M.E. to vote and possess firearms but removed rights to change marital status, obtain/retain a driver’s license, and testify in judicial/administrative proceedings.
M.E. moved to vacate the guardianship and to be restored to capacity; the court delayed a house sale pending a restoration hearing (Mar 2015) but ultimately denied restoration and authorized sale of her house to pay care costs (Apr 2015).
On appeal M.E. challenged personal jurisdiction/notice, the lack of a court-appointed examining physician, the guardian ad litem’s advocacy, sufficiency of the evidence and least-restrictive-alternative analysis, deprivation of specific legal rights, and the house sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction / notice of hearing	M.E.: not personally served; court lacked jurisdiction	Petitioners: M.E. attended hearing and did not object	Court: M.E. waived notice by appearing and not objecting; jurisdiction proper
Appointment / report of physician	M.E.: court failed to appoint and get an examining physician’s report as required	Petitioners: Dr. Burtnett’s recent treating-letter sufficed; later a physician was appointed but declined exam	Court: substantial compliance — treating physician’s letter met statutory report requirements; no error
Guardian ad litem duties	M.E.: GAL should have advocated for her expressed wishes (stay in home, oppose guardianship)	Petitioners: GAL must investigate and represent ward as GAL, not act as retained advocate	Court: GAL fulfilled statutory duties; no error
Deprivation of specific rights (marriage, license, testifying)	M.E.: court removed rights without specific findings	Petitioners: findings (memory deficits, medication effects, inability to drive, exploitation) justify restrictions	Court: findings supported deprivation of marriage and driver’s license rights; but insufficient specific finding to revoke right to testify — modified order to restore right to testify

In re Guardianship of B.K.J., 867 N.W.2d 345 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review and requirement for express findings)
Sweeney v. Kirby, 864 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2015) (clearly erroneous standard and when findings are reversible)
In re Estate of Ashbrook, 110 N.W.2d 184 (N.D. 1961) (probate procedure is statutory and requires substantial compliance)
In re Estate of Anderson, 34 N.W.2d 413 (N.D. 1948) (probate substantial compliance principle)
In re Estate of Gleeson, 655 N.W.2d 69 (N.D. 2002) (appointment/participation of a physician in guardianship)
In re Conservatorship and Guardianship of Pulver, 871 P.2d 985 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (purpose of physician’s report is to provide medical basis for incapacity finding)
In re Conservatorship of Kinney, 495 N.W.2d 69 (N.D. 1993) (conservator’s authority to sell real property and review standard)