State v. Martin, 2011 ND 6

G.L. was involuntarily admitted for cognitive decline; guardianship and conservatorship were sought by M.L. and C.V.
The district court appointed Guardian and Protective Services as temporary guardian/conservator and later permanent guardian/conservator based on neuropsychological evidence of dementia.
A December 2009 hearing led to permanent guardianship/conservatorship with Guardian and Protective Services; M.L. and Ch.L. moved for relief or new trial.
April 2010: a second neuropsychologist reported improvement and recommended terminating guardianship and conservatorship and returning G.L. to independent living.
The district court terminated guardianship/conservatorship and ordered G.L., or his estate, to pay $12,088.28 in administration expenses.
M.L. appeals, urging due process issues and that expenses were improperly awarded; the court addresses collateral estoppel and discretionary expense award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May M.L. collaterally attack the initial guardianship order?	M.L. argues the December 2009 order violated due process and should be challengeable.	Guardian and Protective Services contends the issue is waived; the prior order is not appealable in this phase.	Collaterally estopped; cannot attack initial appointment in this appeal.
Is the district court's award of guardianship/conservatorship expenses reviewable for abuse of discretion?	Expenses are improper or excessive given shifting guardianship status.	The court has broad discretion to determine reasonable compensation under NDCC §30.1-28-12 and 30.1-29-14.	No abuse of discretion; expenses properly awarded.

In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of V.J.V.N., 750 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 2008) (guardian entitled to reasonable compensation; court determines reasonableness)
In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of D.M.O., 749 N.W.2d 517 (N.D. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for guardianship orders)
Gratech Co., Ltd. v. Wold Eng’g, P.C., 729 N.W.2d 326 (N.D. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Rakowski v. City of Fargo, 777 N.W.2d 880 (N.D. 2010) (collateral attack limitations after final judgment)
State ex rel. N.D. Dep’t of Labor v. Riemers, 779 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2010) (finality and Rule 60(b)-type considerations in ND)
Tibbetts v. Dornheim, 681 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 2004) (timely appeals required to preserve review)