Nevada Supreme Court

Commission to Study the Administration of

Guardianships in Nevadas Courts

February 26, 2016, Meeting Materials

Justice James W. Hardesty, Chair

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

AGENDA

1 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Supreme Court of Nevada

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

ROBIN SWEET
Director and
State Court Administrator
JOHN MCCORMICK
Assistant Court Administrator
Judicial Programs and Services

RICHARD A. STEFANI
Deputy Director
Information Technology
VERISE V. CAMPBELL
Deputy Director
Foreclosure Mediation

MEETINGNOTICEANDAGENDA
NameofOrganization:
SupremeCourtCommissiontoStudytheCreationandAdministrationofGuardianships
InNevadasCourts

DateandTimeofMeeting:February26,2016,1p.m.to4:30p.m.

PlaceofMeeting:

LASVEGAS
CARSONCITY
ELKO
NevadaSupremeCourt
FourthJudicialDistrict
RegionalJusticeCenter
201S.CarsonStreet
571IdahoStreet
NevadaSupremeCourt
200LewisAve.,
LawLibrary,Room107
Dept.2
th

17 Floor,Courtroom

AGENDA

I.
CalltoOrder
a. CallofRollandDeterminationofQuorum
b. ApprovalofMeetingSummaryfromJanuary22,2016(pages519)(forpossibleaction)

II.
PublicComment
Becauseoftimeconsiderations,theperiodforpubliccommentbyeachspeakerwillbelimitedto
3minutes,andspeakersareurgedtoavoidrepetitionofcommentsmadebypreviousspeakers.

III.
Presentation
a. SecondJudicialDistrictsDataCollectionProcess(JudgeDoherty,JudgeWalker,Craig
Franden,CraigSmith,HollyLujan)
b. EighthJudicialDistrictsDataCollectionProcess(MikeDoan,JudgeSteel)

IV.
DiscussiononSubjectMatterRecommendations(GeneralPolicyQuestions14,1629)(pages
2021)(forpossibleaction)

Supreme Court Building 201 South Carson Street, Suite 250 Carson City, Nevada 89701 (775) 684-1700 Fax (775) 684-1723
Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Avenue, 17th floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

2 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

V.

Updates(forpossibleaction)
a. CAPTechnicalAssistanceAward(RileyWilson)
b. ComplianceAB325(SusanHoyandKimSpoon)
c. MinorGuardianshipStatute(JudgeWalker)
d. Data/ITSubcommittee(StephanieHeyingforHansJessup)(pages2324)
e. GuardianshipFilingFees(StephanieHeying)(pages2640)
f. EighthandSecondJudicialDistrictWorkingGroups(JudgeSteel&JudgeDoherty)

VI.

SubcommitteeAppointments(JusticeHardesty)
a. BillofRightsSubcommittee
b. LegalRepresentationSubcommittee
c. GALSubcommittee
d. PhysiciansCertificateandDefinitions/Terms

OtherBusiness
a. LockBoxesNominatedGuardian(RanaGoodman)

VII.

VIII.

IX.

FutureMeetingDates
a. April1,2016
b. April22,2016
c. May20,2016

Adjournment

Actionitemsarenotedby(forpossibleaction)andtypicallyincludereview,approval,denial,and/orpostponementofspecificitems.Certainitemsmaybereferredto
asubcommitteeforadditionalreviewandaction.
AgendaitemsmaybetakenoutoforderatthediscretionoftheChairinordertoaccommodatepersonsappearingbeforetheCommissionand/ortoaidinthetime
efficiencyofthemeeting.
Ifmembersofthepublicparticipateinthemeeting,theymustidentifythemselveswhenrequested.PubliccommentiswelcomedbytheCommissionbutmaybe
limitedtothreeminutesperpersonatthediscretionoftheChair.
TheCommissionispleasedtoprovidereasonableaccommodationsformembersofthepublicwhoaredisabledandwishtoattendthemeeting.Ifassistanceis
required,pleasenotifyCommissionstaffbyphoneorbyemailnolaterthantwoworkingdayspriortothemeeting,asfollows:StephanieHeying,(775)6879815
email:sheying@nvcourts.nv.gov
ThismeetingisexemptfromtheNevadaOpenMeetingLaw(NRS241.030(4)(a))
AtthediscretionoftheChair,topicsrelatedtotheadministrationofjustice,judicialpersonnel,andjudicialmattersthatareofaconfidentialnaturemaybeclosedto
thepublic.
Noticeofthismeetingwaspostedinthefollowinglocations:NevadaSupremeCourtwebsite:www.nevadajudiciary.us;CarsonCity:SupremeCourt
th
Building,AdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts,201SouthCarsonStreet;LasVegas:RegionalJusticeCenter,200LewisAvenue,17 Floor.

3 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

MEETINGSUMMARY

4 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Supreme Court of Nevada

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

ROBIN SWEET
Director and
State Court Administrator

RICHARD A. STEFANI
Deputy Director
Information Technology

JOHN MCCORMICK
Assistant Court Administrator
Judicial Programs and Services

VERISE V. CAMPBELL
Deputy Director
Foreclosure Mediation

MEETINGSUMMARY
PreparedbyStephanieHeyingandRaquelRodriguez
AdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts

SupremeCourtCommissiontoStudytheCreationandAdministrationof
GuardianshipsinNevadasCourts

DateandTimeofMeeting:January22,2016,1:00p.m.to4:30p.m.
PlaceofMeeting:

CarsonCity
LasVegas
Elko
NevadaSupremeCourt
RegionalJusticeCenter
Fourth Judicial District
201SouthCarsonSt.
200LewisAve.
Court
th
LawLibrary,Room107
17 Floor,Courtroom
571 Idaho Street, Dept.

MembersPresent:

JayP.Raman
ChiefJusticeJamesW.Hardesty,chair
SallyRamm
ChiefJudgeMichaelGibbons
KimRowe
JudgeFrancesDoherty
TerryRussell
JudgeNancyPorter
ChristineSmith
JudgeCynthiaDianneSteel
DavidSpitzer
JudgeEganWalker
KimSpoon
SenatorBeckyHarris
TimothySutton
AssemblymanMichaelC.Sprinkle
SusanSweikert
AssemblymanGlennE.Trowbridge
ElyseTyrell
TrudyAndrews

JulieArnold
AOCStaff
DebraBookout

KathleenBuchanan
StephanieHeying
RanaGoodman
HansJessup
SusanHoy
RaquelRodriguez

5 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

I.

CalltoOrder

a.
CallofRollandDeterminationofQuorum

Chairman Hardesty called the Commission to Study the Creation and Administration of Guardianships
(Commission)toorderat1p.m.Aquorumwaspresent.

b.
ApprovalofMeetingSummaryfromDecember15,2015,meeting.

TheDecember15,2015,meetingsummarywasunanimouslyapproved.

II.
PublicComment

Public Comments were transcribed verbatim and are included as a separate attachment to the meeting
summary.

III.

Updates

Complaints/Reports

Mr. Jay Raman has been working closely with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Departments (LVMPD) Abuse and
NeglectDivision.Meetingmaterialsincludedanemailthatwassenttolawenforcementsupporttechnicians,patrol
servicerepresentatives,andpatrolofficersbyLieutenantJamesWeiskopf,SpecialVictimsSection,LVMPD.Theemail
restates people who take reports at the station do need to take the report and if they have questions about the
natureofthecomplaint,theyshouldcontacttheAbuseandNeglectDetailforfurtherguidance.Peoplehaveaduty
tobemandatoryreportersandifsomeoneisnotwillingtotakethatreportthentheyarenotabletofulfilltheirlegal
obligations. Additionally, if someone sees or notices that someone is being exploited or abused, whether they are
underguardianshipornot,theyneedtoreporttheexploitationand/orabuse.Mr.Ramanwouldcontinuetowork
withlawenforcement.Thisisanongoingprocessandthiswasapositivestepintherightdirection.

ConservatorshipAccountabilityProject(CAP)Award

Mr.RileyWilsonreportedtheEighthJudicialDistrictCourt,withtheapprovaloftheNevadaSupremeCourt,applied
for and was awarded a technical assistance grant through the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The grant
allows the District to become a pilot state for the Conservatorship Accountability Project (CAP). Minnesota, along
withNCSC,developedCAP,whichincludesanapplicationviaawebsitethatallowsguardianstoenterinventoriesand
accountings.Onlinetraining,includingYouTubevideos,isavailabletohelpeducatethosefillingouttheapplications.
The software is open source so any changes the District might make would be shared with other states and vice
versa.TheDistrictsITDepartmentisworkingonthelicensingagreementandtheimplementationofthesoftware.
Thepurposeofthesoftwareistomodernizethecollectionofinformationandallowsinventoriesandaccountingsto
be filed into the case electronically. The software allows the court to put all inventories and accountings into the
sameformat,makingauditingeasierandstandardizingtheprocess.Acopyoftheawardletterandnewsreleasewas
senttomemberspriortothemeeting.

6 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

AssemblyBill325LicensurePrivateProfessionalGuardians

TheFinancialInstitutionsDivision(FID)heldaworkshopinDecember,allowingPrivateProfessionalGuardians(PPG)
aforumtolisttheirissues/concernsregardingdraftregulationsforthelicensingrequirementsofPPGspursuantto
thepassingofAssemblyBill325.Ms.SpoonreportedFIDlistenedtotheconcernsexpressedbythePPGsandhave
madesomegoodchangesintheseconddraft,includingreducingthelicensingfeeto$500.ThePPGsareuncertain
howmuchotherfees,suchasauditing,willcost.ThePPGswerepleasedFIDlistenedtotheirconcernsandtheyare
workingtogetheringoodfaith.Therearestillsomeissuesthatmightneedtobeaddressedthroughlegislationand
thePPGswouldbereachingouttotheirlegislators.

Ms. Susan Hoy has been working with several insurance and bond companies to meet the bond requirements
pursuanttothelicensure.Ms.HoynotedtheyhavehadadifficulttimefindingacompanyinNevadathatwouldissue
abondtomeettherequirements.SenatorBeckyHarrisaskedMs.Hoytoprovideadditionalinformationonthebond
issue.SenatorHarrisnotedthebondingcomponentofAB325wascriticalanditisimportantthatPPGsarebonded
and she is concerned there is only one company that will issue this type of bond. Ms. Hoy explained that under
section33ofAB325thereweretwobondingcomponents.(1)BondingasitappliestoNRS159and(2)bondingasit
appliestothebusinessandtheemployeesofthebusiness.TherewerenoissueswiththebondasitappliedtoNRS
159.Theissuewaswiththebondforthebusinessandemployeesduetotheliability.Manyofthebondcompanies
requestedthataformbeprovidedfromthestate.Ms.HoycontactedFIDabouttheformandFIDtoldhertheydid
not have a form; Ms. Hoy needed to let the insurance company know she needed a fidelity bond. The insurance
companiessaidtheyneededtheformtodeterminerisk.Ms.Hoysofficewasabletolocateaninsurancecompany
outofMissourithatwouldwritethebond,coveringupto10employees.Ms.Hoynotedthemainissueishowthe
statutereads,isitonebondcoveringallemployeesorisabondrequiredforeachemployee.Therearequestionsas
towherethe$25,000figurecamefrom,andwherethestateformis.

SenateBill362ResidentandNonresidentAgent

Justice Hardesty has had several meetings with the Secretary of States Office (SOS) to discuss the provisions of
SenateBill262(SB262)andhowitisbeingimplementedandthechallengesassociatedwiththebill.JusticeHardesty
askedMr.JeffLanderfelt,DeputySecretaryofStateforCommercialRecordings,todiscussSB262andthechallenges
thathavebeenraised.

Mr.JeffLanderfeltthankedJusticeHardestyfortheopportunitytopresenttotheCommission.Mr.Landerfeltstated,
pursuanttoSB262(1)6(b),aCourtAppointedNonresidentGuardianofanadultmustappointaregisteredagentin
the same manner as a represented entity pursuant to NRS 77 through a filing with the SOS Office. While this is
generally straightforward, it does present some issues in application simply because NRS 77 addresses the
appointment of registered agents only in a business context, which does not fit squarely with the appointment of
registeredagentsinaWard/Guardiancontext.

The basic requirements of registered agents, as specified in NRS Chapter 77 and NAC Chapter 77, are minimal. In
ordertoserveasaregisteredagentinNevada,onemustbeatleast18yearsofage,willingandabletoacceptservice
of process, and must physically reside in or have a physical location in Nevada where process may be served. An
individual or business entity becomes a registered agent by signing and filing a Registered Agent Acceptance form
withouroffice,whichincludesanacknowledgementstatingthattheyareacceptingappointmentasregisteredagent
forthenamedentity,inthiscasetheNonresidentGuardian.

7 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Infillingout theRegisteredAgentAcceptanceform,theregisteredagent mustprovidehisorhernameandstreet

address.Thenamedlocationmust:

1. Be an actual physical address in this State (post office boxes, mail drops, mail forwarding or other mail
servicecompaniesareprohibited);
2. Beopenduringnormalworkinghours;
3. Bestaffedbyatleastonenaturalpersonwhoisofsuitableageanddiscretiontoreceiveserviceoflegal
processandanydemandornoticeauthorizedbylaw;and
4. Have operations sufficient to allow for proper service of all legal process and any demand or notice
authorizedbylawtobeservedupontheentityrepresentedbytheagent.

Thebasicstatutorydutiesofregisteredagentsareasfollows:

1. Toforwardtotherepresentedentity attheaddressmostrecentlysuppliedtotheagentbytheentityany
process,noticeordemandthatisservedontheagent;
2. ToprovidethenoticessentbytheSOStotheentity;

The obligations of Registered Agents when resigning could present a problem in the Ward/Guardian context. A
registeredagentforabusinessentityhasadutytonotifytheentityuponresignationwiththeSOS,andtheresigning
RegisteredAgentsdutiescease30daysafterfilingforresignation,orearlierifareappointmenthasoccurred.The
sameresignationprocessintheWard/GuardiancontextcouldleavetheNonresidentGuardianwithoutaRegistered
AgentiftheresigningRegisteredAgentfailedinthisdutytonotifytheNonresidentGuardian,andthecourtwould
not,inanycase,beawareofaresignationandreassignment.Currently,anappointmentofaRegisteredAgentfora
nonregisteredentity,whichishowwearecurrentlytreatingappointmentsrelatedtoWard/Guardians,expiresin5
years.

Currently,onaformdevelopedforthispurpose,thefollowinginformationiscollected:

NameoftheWard
Name,address,andsignatureoftheNonresidentGuardian
Name,address,andsignatureofacceptanceofappointment,oftheregisteredagent

A fee of $60 is collected with the filing. After entry into the database, the information above is searchable on the
BusinessEntitySearchbytheWardsname.SOSrequiresacopyofthecourtorderwiththefiling,althoughSOShave
onlyrecentlybegundoingso.Thosewhodidnotprovideacopyofthecourtorderarebeingcontactedtodoso.

NRS77givesourofficebroadregulatoryauthorityrelatedtotheappointmentofRegisteredAgents.Whileweare
notfamiliarwiththenonresidentguardianprocess,SOSwelcomesanyguidancefromtheCommissionaswedevelop
processesrelatedtotheappointmentofregisteredagentsforCourtAppointedNonresidentGuardiansofAdults.It
may be that additional specific requirements are needed to address the unique circumstances surrounding the
appointmentofRegisteredAgentsofCourtAppointedNonresidentGuardians.Inparticular,thecourtmaywishto
addressthefollowing:

Does the Commission wish to have additional qualifications for Registered Agents representing Court
AppointedNonresidentGuardians?
ArethestaffingandhoursrequirementsnecessaryintheWard/Guardiancontext?

8 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

DoestheCommissionforeseeaCommercialRegisteredAgentequivalentintheWard/Guardiancontext?
Does the Commission envision different or additional duties to apply to Registered Agents of Court
AppointedNonresidentGuardians?
Would the Commission require certain record retention duties of Registered Agents of CourtAppointed
NonresidentGuardians?
WouldtheCommissionpreferaprovisionrelatedtoresignationoftheRegisteredAgentwherebythecourtis
notifiedatthetimeofresignationandsubsequentreassignment?
Woulditbebesttonotapplythe5yearexpirationtoappointmentsrelatedtoWard/Guardians?

The Commission may also wish to address the penalties, as outlined in NRS 77.447, associated with violations of
Registered Agents, and perhaps the notification associated with alleged violations, to include notification to the
court, which ordered the appointment and the represented nonresident guardian. Currently, only the Registered
Agentmustbenotified.

JusticeHardestynotedtheSOShasregulatoryauthoritytohandlesomeofthequestionsposedbutsomemightneed
tobeaddressedlegislatively.ThereneedstobecoordinationbetweenthecourtsandtheSOSofficetomakesure
this important compliance piece is being addressed. This is not as simple as it seems and there is a lot to do. The
questionswouldbedistributedtomembersfortheirreviewandthiswouldbeaddedasanagendaitemforthenext
Commissionmeeting.JusticeHardestyrequestedthelawyersontheCommissionandrequestedJudgeDohertyand
JudgeSteeltogobacktotheirBenchBarsanddiscussthisissue.Theissuesneedtobevettedandtheordersentered
bythecourtappointingnonresidentguardiansneedtobefurnishedtotheSOSOfficeandtheSOSOfficeneedsto
notifythecourtifsomeoneresigns.

Data/ITSubcommitteeUpdate

Mr.HansJessupprovidedareportfromtheData/ITSubcommittee.TheSubcommitteediscussedhowtobestcount
and measure guardianship cases, specifically the performance measures. One of the areas identified was Nevada
Revised Statute (NRS) 159.057. NRS 159.057 states, if the appointment of guardian is sought for two or more
proposedwardswhoarechildrenofacommonparent,parentandchildorhusbandandwife,itisnotnecessarythat
separatepetitionsbondsandotherpapersbefiledwithrespecttoeachproposedwardorwards.Thiscouldcreate
an issue in determining court performance measures. For example, if there are multiple wards one of the wards
mightageoutorpassawayandtheotherwarddoesnot,sothecasemightbearbitrarilyextended.Inthiscase,there
would not be onetoone measurements for performance measures. The Subcommittee reviewed whether cases
could be filed under A, B, C designation as well as how this might affect court administration. The Subcommittee
recommends creating a court rule that cases are filed under separate petitions for individual Wards or subjects of
guardianship.Ifnecessary,theNRScouldbeamendedatthenextlegislativesession.

TheCommissionhaddiscussedthereasonforfilingonepetition withmultiplewardswastoavoidadditionalfiling
fees.ManyoftheminorguardianshipcasesdonothavefilingfeesbecausethereisnoestatevalueandunderNRS
Chapter19,nofilingfeeswouldbeassociatedwiththecase.TheSubcommitteereviewedandprovidedalistofthe
filing fees charged throughout the state. There could be an impact, depending on the estate value, if multiple
petitionshadtobefiled.Thechartprovidedindicatesfilingfeesvaryfromcountytocountydependingonthevalue
oftheestate.Mr.JessupstatedtheSubcommitteewantedtobringthefilingfeestotheCommissionsattentionand
suggestedtheCommissionreviewthefilingfees.

9 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

TheCommissiondiscussedtheinconsistencyamongthedistrictsandthattheinterpretationofthestatutesproviding
filing fees creates some uncertainty about what fees should be charged and under what circumstances. The
Commissiondiscussedfilingfeesaretiedtotheestatevalue,andinmostoftheguardianshipcases,theestatevalue
wouldnotbeknownatthetimeofthefilingofthepetitionforguardianship.Inaddition,thecourtmaynevertake
jurisdictionofovertheestateinaguardianshipcaseyetthefilingfeeisbasedontheestatevalue.Additionally,NRS
19.020 subparagraph 2 states, at the commencement of any proceeding in any district court for the purpose of
procuringanappointmentofadministrationupontheestateofanydeceasedperson,orprocuringanappointment
asguardian,thepartyinstitutingtheproceedingshallpaytheclerkofthecourtthesumof$1.50.Subparagraph4
states,theseveralfeesprovidedforinthissectionaredesignatedascourtfees,andnosuchactionmaybedeemed
commenced,proceedingsinstituted,norappealperfecteduntilthecourtfeesarepaid.Thechartindicatescounties
are not charging any fee for guardianship estates valued at $0 to $2500 and some do not charge a filing fee for
estatesvaluedat$2500$20000.Doesthisrenderthoseguardianshipsinvalid?Thisisaninterestinglegalquestion.
ItwassuggestedtheCommissionmightlookintoaflatfilingfeeornofilingfeeatall.Thiswouldbeincludedasan
itemfordiscussionatthenextCommissionmeeting.

IV.
GeneralPolicyQuestionsandRecommendations

The Commission reviewed questions 18 at the December 15 meeting. The Commission began to review the
remaininggeneralpolicyquestionsbeginningwithquestion9.

Question9:DoestheCommissionsupportarecommendationtoadoptSupportiveLivingAgreementssimilarto
theapproachtakeninTexas?

Texas had adopted a practice/program where an individual could enter into a Supportive Living Agreement (SLA).
JusticeHardestynoted,asamatterofpolicy,whileaSLAseemslikeagoodideatherearenorealprotectionsforthe
Wardthatcomesfromsuchadocument.IfthiswerealessrestrictiveorlessintrusiveinvasionofaWardsrights,it
seemstherewouldneedtobesomeaccountabilitytoreducetheriskofabuseandelderorWardexploitation.

Discussion

CommissionmembersexpressedconcernthattheremightnotbeoversightormonitoringofanSLA.

JudgeDohertystatedtheSecondJudicialDistrictsTaskForce(TaskForce)hasdiscussedthisconcept.TheTaskForce
thinks a SLA would address the avoidance of lifelong guardianship oversight for some young adult persons whom
might otherwise be subject to a guardianship but have wraparound supports in place. The SLA might not be any
riskierthanthemanypowerofattorneysthataresignedandauthorizedbyindividualswhoareseekingavoidanceof
guardianshipcourts.JudgeDohertynotedtheCommissiondoesnothavetheadvancedthoughtorsubstanceonthis
typeofagreementatthistime.Thereisonlytheidea.TheSLAhasbeenincludedintheSecondJudicialDistrictsdraft
pro per guardianship petition as a listed entity to avoid or reduce the need for guardianship. The Task Force
recognizes the need for statewide consensus. Judge Doherty encouraged the Commission to not take this off the
table and allow the Task Force time to develop this concept. The Task Force would provide the Commission more
information,includingthepotentialforcourtoversightorrecommendingagainstcourtoversight.
The Commission discussed court oversight and/or approval of SLAs and if there would be a reason not to include
requirements for inventories and accountings under a SLA. Judge Doherty thought this could go either way
depending on the Commissions preference. Many young adults and seniors have the challenge of accessing and
coordinatingservices.ASLAisaboutcoordinatingaplanandauthorizingpeople,whoareotherwisetheretosupport
theperson,topullaplantogetherandhavesomedesignatedagencyauthoritytointeractwiththeserviceproviders.

10 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

JudgeWalkerissupportiveofJudgeDohertyscommentsandsuggestedtyingaSLAwiththeBillofRights.Thiswould
provideprotectionsfortheWardandtheSLAcouldbebolsteredbytheBillofRights,demonstratingthesubstantive
rightsthatWardsorpersonssubjecttoSLAscouldhave.

The Commission discussed freedom of contract. If the person has the freedom of contract, at least under normal
legal standards that would be expected of enforceable agreements, then the person might not be subject to a
guardianshipinanyevent.ThatiswhatTexaswasattemptingtoaddress.JudgeDohertystatedthecourtreceivesa
highvolumeofcasesthatarereferredbytheschooldistrictonceachildturns18(IndividualizedEducationPrograms
(IEPs)). This does not necessarily encompass the need for a guardianship from the courts point of view but might
encompasstheneedfromtheschooldistrictspointofview,andotheradultserviceprovidersforsomecoordinated
planning.AsJudgeWalkerissaying,tieittotheBillofRightswecanputtheBillofRightsinstatute,referencethat,
andincorporatetheBillofRightsintoanyagreementthatmightultimatelybeapprovedasanalternativeplan.

Ms.ArnoldisconcernedthatifsomeonewereexploitedunderaSLAthepersonwouldnothavethemeanstobring
thecivilsuitandenforcetheirBillofRights.TheSLAcouldbeintroducingapersontopotentialexploiters.

Justice Hardesty noted his concern is the concept of SLAs is people could enter into the agreement through any
contractoftheirownfreewill,soifthereisnocourtorsimilartypeofoversightitwouldbedifficulttoknowhow
manySLAsareoutthere.JusticeHardestyisnotsurehowTexasplanstocapturethisinformationbutitwouldhelp
tounderstandifthisconceptisworking.JusticeHardestysuggestedtheTaskForceconsiderthisissueaswell.How
doesonedeterminehowSLAsareworking?

JudgeDohertynotedsheishavingahardtimedistinguishingwhythereisagreaterlevelofconcernforSLAsthen
thereexistsforpowerofattorneysordurablepowersofattorneys.Individualswhohavethecapacitycanenterinto
thoseagreementsnowandwhetherapersonhasthecapacitytoenterintothoseagreementsisnotreviewedbythe
courts.JudgeDohertyaskedwhytheCommissionisdistinguishingbetweenalternativemethodsofcreatingaplan
foranadultwhoispresumedtohavecapacityandwhomwemayfacilitatemoresupportservicesfortomaintain
theirindependencebutwedonothavethatsameworryaboutmorepotentialauthoritythatisgivenunderadurable
powerofattorney.

Judge Doherty would bring information back to the Task Force and ask the representatives from Texas to provide
additionalinformationontheirprocesses.JudgeSteelsuggestedaskingtheTaskForcetofocusonifthereisaSLA
does the court have to authorize the SLA. If so, does that give the supporting persons or the wraparound persons
rights with vendors in the community, and do the vendors have to provide the same respect they would under a
guardianship.Howwouldthisdiffer?JudgeDohertywouldbringthistotheTaskForceandreporttotheCommission
atthenextmeeting.

Question 10: Should every hearing involving a Ward require the Wards presence, which can only be exempted
uponmedicalshowingorsomeothergoodcauseapprovedbythecourt?

Discussion

The Commission discussed the requirement of having a Ward present at all hearings. Commission members noted
therearetimesaWardwillsaytheydonotwanttoattendthe hearing.AWardmightnotbeabletoattendorit
might be laborious task for them to attend due to physical or emotional reasons. Some Wards might not want to
attendbecausetheyareangryorupset.CommissionmembershaveexperiencedtheWardbeingfearfulthatifthey
go to court that means they would be arrested. There might be medical reasons why a Ward could not attend a

11 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

hearing.RuralareasmighthaveadifficulttimegettingtheWardtoattendhearingsinpersonbecausetheWardisin
afacilityinanotherareae.g.,theWardmaybeinacutecareinRenobecausethatisthelevelofcarerequiredand
theruralcommunitydoesnothaveanacutecarefacility.Lackoftransportationisnotareasonfornotattending.

TheCommissiondiscussedallowingaWardtoparticipateviavideoorteleconference.Itwassuggestedthatifcurrent
statutedoesnotallowforthistypeofparticipationitcouldbeaddedtothelanguage.JudgePorterstatedtheFourth
JudicialDistricthasvideoCourtCallavailable.JudgeDohertynotediftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearing
andtheirattorneysaystheydonotwanttoattend,thecourtwouldhonortheirrighttorefuse.TheSecondJudicial
DistrictwouldtrytotalktotheWardviateleconferenceorthroughotherefforts.

Mr.Rowenotedquestion 10contemplatesWardsattendingeveryhearing,notjusttheinitialhearing.Thestatute
alreadyrequirestheWardtoattendtheinitialhearing,sothequestionisdowegobeyondthatandrequiretheWard
toattendeveryhearing.Therehasbeenemphasisplaced,inWashoeCounty,ontheWardattendingthehearingsin
personunlesstheyareexcused.Asapractitioner,Mr.Rowetriestoaddresstheattendanceoffuturehearingsatthe
initialhearingandevaluatewhetheraWardshouldberequiredtoattendeachhearingonanindividualbasis.Mr.
RowedoesnothaveanyproblemsayingtheWardshouldbepresentateveryhearing,sinceeveryhearingaffectsthe
Wards life. The courts oversight and ability to gauge and judge for themselves whether the guardianship is
appropriateorifthescopeoftheguardianshipisappropriateisbeneficial.Ifthereisanappropriatereasontoexcuse
theWardthentheyshouldbeexcused.

JudgeDohertysaidtheSecondJudicialDistricthasahighpercentageofWardsthatattendthehearingsandthecourt
encourages their attendance. If the Ward is not in attendance, the first question the court asks is why. If counsel
waivesbecausetheyconferredwiththepersonthatissufficientforthecourtbutthatrarelyhappens.Theperson
alsomightnotattendinpersonduetoamedicalexcuse.

Mr.Rowestatedthevastmajorityofpeoplesubjecttotheguardianshipwanttobeatthecourthearingsiftheycan
physicallybethere,orparticipatebyphoneorthroughothermethods.Only510%aretoophysicallyfeebleorhave
medical reasons why they cannot attend. Washoe County is fortunate because the person subject to the
guardianshiphaslegalrepresentationwhocanspeakforthem.Ifthereisnoonetospeakforthepersonsubjectto
theguardianshipthenitisimperativeforthejudgestomakeafacetofaceevaluation.

CommissionmembersconveyedtheimportanceofWardsattendingthehearingsinperson.Itisimperativethata
personsubjecttoguardianshipbeinattendanceattheinitialhearingwhethertheyarerepresentedbycounselor
not,unlesstheyaremedicallyunabletoattend.Thediscretionshouldbeleftwiththecourtastowhethertheperson
subjecttoguardianshipsappearanceisrequired.ItisimportantthatthejudgeisabletoseetheWardandtheWard
hasarighttohearwhatisbeingsaidaboutthemandtherighttorespond.

Ms.HoyandMs.SpoonstatedtheyworkveryhardtomakesuretheWardsareincourt.Itisveryimportantforthe
personwhoissubjecttotheguardianshiptoattendtheinitialhearingaswellasthehearingsthereafter,evenifthe
Wardhasanappointedattorney.

Mr.Ramansuggestedasaworkaround,sinceitisveryimportantthatthejudgelayseyesontheWard,maybethe
judge,attorney,andanyotherappropriatepartiescouldgototheWard.Thismaybeforraresituations.

JudgeSteelaskedifaWardrefusestocometocourtandthejudgecannotidentifyareasonwhytheWardshouldbe
excused,wouldthecourtnotmakeadecisionthatisbeforethemonthatday.Ifthejudgedoesmakeadecision,is
thatdecisiongoingtobeviablebecausetheWarddidnotattendthehearing?JudgeSteelexpressedconcernifthe

12 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

firsttimeshewasmeetingaWardwasoverthephone.HowwouldthejudgeknowthatwastheWardonthephone?
JudgeSteelwouldprefermeetingthepersonsubjecttotheguardianshipfacetofaceattheinitialhearing.Shedid
liketheideaofvisitingtheWard.SomeonecouldvisittheWardandprovideanaffidavitthattheWardstatesthey
willnotattendthehearing.IftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearingitwouldbeperceivedasforcingthemto
attend.TheCommissionhasbeenallabouttheproceedingsnotforcingtheWardstodothingstheydonotwantand
tobelessintrusiveintheirlife,butnowiftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearingthecourtsaregoingtoforce
themtoattend.JudgeSteelwouldliketheCommissiontothinkabouttheseconcernsbeforemakingahardandfast
rulethatWardshavetoattendeverysinglehearing.JudgeSteelthinksitisveryvaluablefortheWardstoattendand
shelearnsalotbymeetingwiththeWardanditprovidestheopportunitytotalkwiththem,whichishelpful.Sheis
concernedthatmakingahardandfastruleonsomeofthesethingsmightbedetrimental.

SenatorHarrissaidwewanttobesensitivetoeachpersonsproclivitiestocometocourtornot,butifthereisno
requirementtohavesomekindofvideoorcourtpresencethentheCommissionislosingsightoftheaccountability.
SenatorHarrisisconcernedthatthecourtwouldgorightbacktothepossibilityofabusesthattheCommissionhas
been working so hard to overcome. The Commission needs to make certain it is doing its due diligence in the
investigation and making sure those Wards truly require a guardianship and that circumstances have not changed
and our accountability measure in that process. Judge Steel responded it might be helpful to have an investigator
thatthecourtcouldsendtovisitwiththeWardandreporttothecourtthattheyvisitedtheWardtomakesurethey
wereok.

Ms.ArnoldstatediftheCommissionachievesoneofitsearliergoalsofeachWardhavinglegalrepresentationthen
theattorneycouldvisitwiththeWard,inperson,andrepresenttheWardincourt.TheWardslegalrepresentation
couldletthejudgeknowtheyhaveseentheWardandtheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearing.Theremight
alsobeWardswhowouldbephysicallydangerousbecausetheyarecombativeormentallyimpairedandcouldattack
someone.Ms.Arnoldthinksthisconceptisaspirational.ItwouldbebeneficialtoseetheWardsateveryhearing,but
thereshouldbeanescapeclauseforsituationswherethereisamedicaloremotionalreasonorthereisanattorney
orinvestigatorwhocouldreporttheyhaveseentheWardandexplainedwhatisgoingonincourtandthattheWard
doesnotwishtoattendthehearing.Ms.ArnoldthinkstheCommissioncouldachievethoseendswithoutmakingita
statutory requirement to show up in court. Justice Hardesty asked if the exemption for some other good cause
covers that. Mr. Arnold responded she would hope so. Ms. Arnold wants it understood that these are types of
situationsthatcouldfallundergoodcause.

Judge Dohertymoved thatquestion 10,aswrittenorslightly modified,encompasseverysinglepersons

commentstodayandthatgoodcausefindingsbeincorporatedintothereferenceofgoodcauseapproved
bythecourt.JudgeDohertyaddedshethinksalloftheCommissionsconcernsareaddressedinquestion
10asitiswritten.

JudgeWalkerdoesnotdisagreewiththecommentsaboutattendanceoftheproposedWard.JudgeWalkerstatedin
Washoe County there are more minor guardianships than adult guardianships and this conversation assumes the
Commissionisonlytalkingaboutadultguardianships.JudgeWalkeroverseesfostercarecasesandwouldnotwanta
youngchildtoseedad,whohasbeenremovedfromthehomeforbatteringmom,forexample,atthecourthouseat
thefirsthearingoranyhearings.JudgeWalkerusedthatexample,nottoopposetheassumptionsbehindquestion
10 or the comments, but to argue that we need to consider a subchapter or a different way of handling this for
minorsbecausetheirneedsarefundamentallydifferentfromadults.

Judge Doherty agreed with Judge Walker and suggested question 10 only applies to adult Wards. Judge
Steelsecondedthemotion.

13 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

AdditionalDiscussion

Mr. Tim Sutton would be opposed to the exclusion of minors. Justice Hardesty stated question 10 would apply to
adults and the issue of minors would be addressed separately. Judge Walker agrees that minors should not be
excluded.OneofthechallengesJudgeWalkerhaswiththelawasitiswrittenisaproposedWardinthisstateMUST
attend the hearing for the appointment of guardian. That includes ALL proposed Wards right now. Judge Walker
would have infants and young children in court who are seeing their parents for whom they have been removed.
Judge Walker is suggesting this should be nuanced. Mr. Sutton agreed with the concerns Judge Walker raised and
wouldbeokwiththemotionaslongasminorswouldbeaddressedseparately.JusticeHardestystatedyes.

Ms.Heyingtookarollcallvote.Yea25;Nay0;Excused/Absent1.

Question11:ShouldthenoticerequirementsinChapter159beamendedandifsohow?

JusticeHardestystatedthethresholdquestionsare:

WhatarethepresentrequirementsunderNRSChapter159fornoticeofguardianshipinitially?
Whomustreceivenotice?
Howisnoticeproven?
Howisnoticedocumented?
Whatrulingsdoesthejudgemakeaboutnoticebeforestartingintothemeritsoftheproceedings?

JudgeDohertyexplainedtheSecondJudicialDistrictlooksfornoticeattheinitialfilingandreviewstoseeifnoticeis
provided to persons identified within the 2nd degree of consanguinity. The court recognizes that not everyone is
knownatthetimeofthepetition.JudgeDohertystatedtheweaknessinthestatuteisnotnecessarilytheupfront
filingandnoticecomponents,althoughtheycouldbebolsteredsome,butthereisnolanguageofnoticewithrespect
to inventories. The statute includes heavy upfront notice requirements for the petition, and there is a notice
requirement for accounting but nothing for the inventory. This could be improved and Judge Doherty suggested
refiningthemethodofidentifyinginterestedpersons.Theremightbeinterestedpersonswhoarenotwithinthe2nd
degree of consanguinity. Judge Doherty suggested formally acknowledging or contemplating a protocol by which
someone identifies them as a person of interest requesting ongoing notice and somehow reviewing that request.
JudgeDohertyexplainedthecourtverifiesnoticeoftheWardinthesamemannerasnoticeoneveryotherentity.
The court requires notice be personally delivered to the Ward. The older practice was that notice was sent to the
administratoroftheskilledfacilityorgrouphome.ThisisstillrequiredbutthatisnotnoticeontheWardandthe
district has made that clear. The court requires independent direct notice to the person who is going to face the
guardianship.JudgeDohertydoesnotknowifthatisefficientlydefinedinthestatute.Mr.RoweandJusticeHardesty
statedtheydidnotthinkitwas.

JudgePorterrequirespersonalnoticetotheWard.JudgePorterhasmanyproperswhodonotknowhowtoprovide
therequirednoticetothepersons.Iftheproperdoesprovidenoticetheydonotknowhowtofileproofthatthey
havegivennotice,whichhasbeenarealstruggleinherdistrict.JudgePorterdoesnotproceedifshedoesnotfeela
sufficientnumberofpeoplehavebeennotified.

Judge Steel commented the Eighth Judicial District handles notice the same as the Second and Fourth Judicial
Districts.ThecourtrequirestheWardtobenoticedbyreturnreceiptrequestedoninitialfilingandbycertificateof
mailingontheotherfilings.JudgeSteelsuggestedevaluatingthetoolsthatareavailablenowtoprovidenoticeand

14 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

seeifwecouldcreatearegistrysomewherethatwouldallowsomeonetochecktoseeiftheirlovedoneisonthe
registry.

The Commission discussed having to rely on the clients to provide names, address, and relationships. Mr. Spitzer
noted Washoe Legal Services interviews the proposed Ward to identify persons within the 2nd degree of
consanguinity. If they receive anything that differs from the notice given in the petition, they will bring it to the
attentionofthecourtandotherparties.AccesstoaccurateinformationislimitedtotheWardsabilitytoprovidethe
information.

Mr.RoweagreeswithJudgeDohertyabouttheinventoryandotherancillarymatters.Hehasalwaysthoughtitwas
oddthatthestatute(NRS159.034)listthe2nddegreeofconsanguinitybutthestatutedoesnotcallfornoticetothe
Wardinthatstatute.Thestatutetalksaboutprovidingnoticetoanypersonorcareproviderwhoistakingcareofthe
WardbutthestatutedoesnotspecificallyidentifytheWard.Mr.Rowenotedthisismoreofalocalruleissuewhere
the proposed Ward would be a party and you need to provide notice to the party. Mr. Rowe was not sure if the
statutewasamendedthislastlegislativesessiontoincludethislanguagebutthecurrentstatutedoesnotspecifically
require notice to the proposed Ward. Mr. Rowe thought the statute should be clarified and it could clean up the
languagepostguardianship.

Judge Steel noted court hearings are not required with some of the documents, e.g., the inventory or report of
person. Judge Steel said the Commission would need to review whether the court would be required to monitor
whether someone has received notice when there could be years between granting the guardianship, filing the
inventory(iftheinventoryisforsummaryadjudicationnoaccountingwouldbefiledandtherewouldbenonoticeof
accounting).TheCommissionwouldneedtoreviewifthecourtwouldberequiredtofileeverysingleyearthenotice
ofpersonanddoacertificateofmailing.JudgeSteelhascasesthatareestateonlysothereisnoreportofperson.
TheITDepartmentmightbeabletoassistthecourttomakesurethatthefollowupdocumentisfiled.

Mr.RowesaidNRS159.047doestalkabouttheissuanceofthecitationthathastobeservedonaproposedWard
whois14yearsorolder.ThereferencetoNRS159.034comesbackfromtheestateside, whichyouhaveprovide
notice. The Ward is referenced in the context of who gets a copy of a citation, indicating there is going to be a
hearing. The question the Bench Bar Committee in Washoe County has been debating is do you actually have to
serveacopyofthepetitionalongwiththecitation.JudgeDohertynotedtheBenchBarCommitteealsonoticedthe
orders do not necessarily contain the list of individuals who are entitled to notice. There is a guardianship order
wherethestatutecontemplatesallthoseindividualsbeingintheoriginalguardianshiporderarelistedsotheperson
under guardianship is aware of that as well. They have just started to do this in Washoe County. The Task Force
recognizedtherearequiteafewdeficitsandinconsistenciesthatshouldbeaddressed.

Mr.Raman wasconcernedthattheinvestigation wouldstopwithaskingtheWardwhotheirfamilyis.Mr.Raman

suggested having a private investigator or Elder Protective Services (EPS) identify if there are additional family
members.Mr.SpoonagreedwithMr.Ramanandnotedherofficetriestoreachouttoasmanypeopleaspossiblein
theirinvestigationtoidentifyfamilymembers.Thisisapartoftheirstandardpractice.Ms.Spoonnotedthereare
timeswhentheproposedWarddoesnotwantaparticularfamilymemberidentified.Maybetheyhaveasiblingthey
havenottalkedtoin40yearsandtheydonotwantthemtoknowtheymightbegoingunderaguardianship.The
proposedWardmightbeupsetormortifiedthatcertainfamilymembersaretobenotified.Ms.Spoonisnotsure
that anything could be done in these situations but she wanted to make the Commission members aware of this
issuebecauseitcanbeverydifficultontheproposeWard.

15 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

JusticeHardestyaskedtheBenchBarCommitteesinthenorthandsouthtoreviewthistopic(question11)
furtherandproviderecommendationstotheCommissionregardingnotice.TheCommissionwouldreview
thepossibilityofamoreexpansiverecommendationastohowspecificallythenoticerequirementinNRS
Chapter159couldbeimplemented,andwhatitshouldbeextendedto.

Question12:DoestheCommissionfavortheideaoflimitedguardianshipsincircumstancesinwhichthecapacity
oftheindividualmaynotplacetheminapositionwhereafullguardianshipiswarranted?

Question12isconceptual.MaterialshadbeenreceivedfromMr.HankCavalleraexpressingareservationaboutthe
useoflimitedguardianships.Question12waswrittenwiththeapproachinitiatedinTexasinmind.JusticeHardesty
suggestedtheCommissionreviewquestion13priortoquestion12.

Question 13: Does the Commission favor so called personcentered planning and determinations by the Court
thatguardianshipsareapprovedonlyforleastrestrictivealternatives?

Discussion

Ms.Goodmannotedseniorsmighthaveaprobleminaspecific areaoftheirlife,e.g.,payingbills,but are

abletofunctioninallotherareasandlifeontheirown.Ms.Goodmanthoughtalimitedguardianshipwould
beidealandcouldallowapersontostayintheirhome.
Ms.BuchanannotedtheClarkCountyPublicGuardiansofficealreadydoesthis.Ms.Buchananprovidedan
example of when a limited guardianship would work well. Example, a mental health client who is on their
medication and they suddenly go off their medication. The order states that while the person is in a good
cognitivestate,wheretheycanhandletheiraffairs,theofficedoesnothaveaguardianship.Theminutethe
persongoesofftheirmedicationstheofficewouldstepinforthatlimitedpurposeofgettingthepersonback
ontheirmedicationorwhatevermedicalresourcestheyneedandthentheguardianshipwouldgoaway.
Ms.Arnoldsuggestedquestions9,12,and13wereintertwined.Eachquestionapproachestheproblemof
losingcapacityatdifferentratesanddifferentareas.Ms.Arnoldthoughtlimitedguardianshipswereagood
idea.
Ms. Hoy said the personcentered planning approach begins at the initial hearing with the Ward
participatingintheprocess.Thisshouldnotendthere.Itshouldgoontowherethatpersonwantstolive,
whatistheleastrestrictivesetting,whatistheirabilitytohaveaccesstotheirownmonies,etc.TheNational
Organizationswantguardianstotakethepersoncenteredplanningapproach.Howmuchofthedaytoday
tasks and decisionmaking can that client or Ward participate? If they are making decisions that are not
causing harm to themselves or others then their role is to be supportive of those decisions so they are
providing the least restrict settings and providing them with a sense of dignity. The Commission should
considerthisimportantarea.
Mr.Suttonsuggestedthisbeincludedinthecertificatethatwouldsupportapetitionandshouldincludean
analysis of the least restrictive means. The Commission discussed modification to that form at its last
meetingandMr.Suttonthinkstheformshouldberequiredtoaddressthis.Thestatutemightalreadyrequire
thistobeaddressed.
Ms. Spoon stated Nevada has astatute called a special guardianship of limited capacity. A guardianship of
limitedcapacitycouldbeestablishedwheresomeonemightneedhelpinsomeareasbutnotinothers.Ms.
Spoonprovidedanareaofconcern.Ifapersonissufferingfromsometypeofdementia/progressivedisease,
e.g.,Alzheimers,wherethepersonmightbefineinoneareaonedayandnotthenextandthereisalimited
guardianship, the guardian might have to keep going back to court to address areas of the limited

16 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

guardianship as the persons disease progresses. Ms. Spoon said the PPG have learned in a general
guardianship,eventhoughtherearesomeareaswherethispersonmightbeabletomakegooddecisionsfor
them,agoodguardianshouldallowthattohappen.Allguardianshipsshouldbelimitedandguardiansshould
allowtheirclientstomakedecisionsiftheyareabletomakethem.Iftheycannotmakeadecisionthenthe
guardianwouldstepintoprotectthem.ThisisaveryindividualthingandshethinkstheCommissionneeds
toconsiderthosesituations.

JusticeHardestysaidwhateverapproachistakenintheguardianshipitisintendedtoaddressthatpersonsparticular
needs.JusticeHardestywaslookingatthisfromthestandpointofleastrestrictivealternatives.Judgeswereaskedif
theycurrentlymakefindingsasapartoftheirorderswhentheyapproveguardianshipsthattherearenootherleast
restrictivealternativestoguardianship.

JudgeDohertyrespondedtheircourtaddressesthisissuemoresignificantlythantheyhavedoneinthepast.Judge
Doherty has not encountered the same experiences as Mr. Cavallera and Ms. Spoon. Since Judge Doherty began
handlingguardianshipcasesthreeyearsago,themajorityoftheguardianshipswereguardianshipofthepersonand
theestate.Asthecourtbegancollectingdata,particularlyinthelastyear,thecourtsdataisreflectingwhatisgoing
on in the courtrooms. The court is reducing the necessity of guardianship of the estate when the person is
impoverishedandtheironlysourceofincomeisfromSupplementalSecurityIncome(SSI).Thereisalreadyasystem
in place through the Social Security Administration to handle and monitor that persons funds. A similar program
exists for veterans through the Veterans Administration. As a standard protocol, the court has begun not issuing
guardianshipsoftheestateandpersonwherethereisaninsignificantestate.Thecourthasbegunusingthespecial
guardianship for limited purpose for those individuals who have limited areas where they truly have challenges
addressing their needs. An attorney advocate is a part of this process. The courts data shows that those types of
guardianshipsareincreasing.Additionally,thecourtistalkingaboutwhatthealternativesare.Theproposedpro
per guardianship petition has affirmative statements being made as to what the alternatives are and why those
alternatives did not work. The court is trying to poise itself for the anticipated requirement that courts would be
expectedtoaddressthosefindingsbystatute.Ifthatdoesnothappenthecourtstillthinksitisgoodpublicpolicyto
address those issues and the statute contemplates this should be done now. Woven into our statute is the
expectation of least restrictive alternatives and woven into our statute is the personcentered planning concept.
TheCommissionshould crystalize this with morespecificityifitisgoing tohaveallWards,litigants,andattorneys
talkingonthesamepage.

JusticeHardestyaskedJudgeDohertyherthoughtsonquestion15,whichisanotherwayofaddressquestion13.

Question 15: Should the Court be required to make specific findings in any order appointing a guardian that
includes a conclusion that no other least restrictive means are available to address the needs of the proposed
wards?

JudgeDohertysaidthisisastateofartandthecourtshouldbemakingthosefindings.JudgeDohertywouldargue
thatNevadastatutehassomelevelofexpectationofspecificfindingsandtheCommissionshouldmakethisclearer.
Thenatureoftheconversationsinthecourthearingsandthenatureofthepleadingoftenfailtomentionalternative
documents,e.g.,powerofattorney,thatmayexiststhatcouldprovidealternativesorprovideadditionalinsight.The
Commissionshouldidentifybestpracticesanditwouldbeappropriatetoincludethebestpracticesinstatuteorin
someformofpolicyprotocol.Thehearingsaresoshortthatmakingthesefindingsareinsignificantifyouaddthe
responsibilityonthecourtofmakingadditionalfindings.Thecourtsshouldbedoingthatnowsoitisnotterrifically
addingtotheburdenofanyplayertoaddressthoseissues.

17 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

JudgeWalkermovedthattheCommissionacknowledgethepurposesandtenetsbehindquestions13and
15becausetheyareinterrelated.JusticeHardestyconfirmedJudgeWalkermovedtoapprovequestions13
and15.JudgeWalkerrespondedyes.Ms.TerryRussellsecondedthemotion.

Additionaldiscussion

JudgeSteelwantstobesuretheCommissionunderstandswhattheparametersare,whatleastrestrictivemeansis,
andwhatitisnot.Someofthepeopleutilizingthecourtsserviceswillbeproperasguardiansandmightnotbeable
tocommunicatethedifferencebetweensomethingthatisleastrestrictiveornot.Iftheydonotprovidethecourt
withthisinformationthenthecourthasnotmadeagooddecision.Aretheynowgoingtobereliablefornotgiving
thecourtalltheinformationbecausetheyhadnoidea?JusticeHardestysaidtheapproachinTexaswastoforcethe
judgetoaskthequestion,topresseventheproperlitigantsandthelitigantswithlawyers.Haveyouexploredother
alternatives? What investigation did you make to the availability of other alternatives? Press this issue before the
courtmakesthosefindings.JudgeWalkeraddedthecourthastomaketheseveryfindingsinfostercarecasesand
thecourtshouldmakethesefindingsinguardianshipcases.

Ms.Heyingtookarollcallvote.Yea21;Nay0;Abstain1;Excused/Absent4.

Wrapup

CommissionmemberswereaskedtoreviewGeneralPolicyQuestions1623priortothenextmeeting.Commission
membersshouldbepreparedtodiscussandvoteonthosequestionsatthenextmeeting.Theobjectiveistoreview
all29questionsbytheApril1meetingsotheCommissioncouldbegintogetintothespecifics.TheFebruarymeeting
agendawouldincludeadiscussionaboutthefilingfees,anupdateontheprivateprofessionallicensingprocess,and
adiscussionontheissuesidentifiedbytheSecretaryofStatesofficeonSB262.Asummaryofthemeeting,which
willincludethequestionsposedbyMr.Landerfelt,willbesenttoCommissionmembers.

V.
FutureMeetingDates

ThenextmeetingwillbeheldonFebruary26,2016.

VI.
Adjournment

Themeetingwasadjournedat4:20p.m.

18 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

GENERALPOLICYQUESTIONS

19 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Generalpolicyquestions:
1. Should the Nevada Supreme Court establish a permanent Commission to address issues of
concerntotheelderly,includingcontinuereviewofGuardianshipRules/processesinNevada?
2. DoestheCommissionfavorarecommendationtoadoptaBillofRightsforWards?
3. DoestheCommissionrecommendtheideathateveryWard,regardlessofmeans,isentitledto
legalcounsel?Howandunderwhatcircumstancesshouldanattorneybeappointed?
4. Does the Commission favor a Guardian Ad Litem program similar to Virginia or under some
othermodel?HowandunderwhatcircumstancesshouldaGALbeappointed?
5. DoestheCommissionrecommendtheuse,whereavailableofvolunteersorprogramssimilarto
SAFEtoassistproposedwardsandtheCourtinaguardianshipproceeding?
6. Does the Commission favor the idea of changing definitions or terminology? Should the
CommissionrecommendchangestothePhysicianCertificateandifsohow?
7. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the confidentiality of all or
someoftheproceedingsinguardianshipcases?
8. Does the Commission recommend changes to the process for the appointment of temporary
guardianships?Ifso,howshouldthatprocessbemodified?
9. DoestheCommissionsupportarecommendationtoadoptSupportiveLivingAgreementssimilar
totheapproachtakeninTexas?
10. Should every hearing involving a Ward require the Wards presence, which can only be
exempteduponamedicalshowingorsomeothergoodcauseapprovedbythecourt?
11. ShouldthenoticerequirementsinChapter159beamendedandifsohow?
12. Does the Commission favor the idea of limited guardianships in circumstances in which the
capacity of the individual may not place them in a position where a full guardianship is
warranted?
13. Does the Commission favor so called personcentered planning and determinations by the
Courtthatguardianshipsareapprovedonlyforleastrestrictivealternatives?
14. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the use, timing, scope,
processandparticipantsinmediationinguardianshipproceedings?
15. ShouldtheCourtberequiredtomakespecificfindingsinanyorderappointingaguardianthat
includesaconclusionthatnootherleastrestrictivemeansareavailabletoaddresstheneedsof
theproposedward?
16. DoestheCommissionrecommendrulestoevaluateCourtsupervisionofguardianshipsincluding
training,staffing,schedulingandcaseloadlimits?
17. Does the Commission favor the use of Elder Protective Services (EPS) or some other entity
independentofthecourtsystemtoconductinvestigationsasnecessary?
18. Does the Commission favor the use of auditors independent of the Court system to evaluate
financial records, fee requests and other petitions/motions raising financial issues concerning
theward?
19. Does the Commission favor recommendations concerning the training, licensure or other
matterspertainingtothepracticeofprivateprofessionalguardians?

20 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

20. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the use, timing, training, or
caseloadsofthePublicGuardians?
21. DoestheCommissionwishtomakerecommendationsconcerningtheuseandappointmentof
privateprofessionalguardians?
22. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the fee structure to
compensateguardiansandotherstheyhire?
23. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the process, notice and
findingsrequiredfortheapprovaloffeestoguardiansandotherstheyhire?
24. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the process and timing for
filingandevaluatinganinventoryfortheward?
25. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the process, timing, notice
andfindingstheCourtmustmakeconcerningaccountingsofthewardsestate?
26. Does the Commission wish to make any recommendations in the use of bonds and the
allocationofcostsforbondsinguardianshipappointments?
27. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the
management/administrationofthewardsestateincludingtheprocessandnoticerequirements
tosellestateassets?
28. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the data used to manage
guardianshipcases?
29. Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the use of forms in
guardianshipproceedings?

21 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

DATA/ITWORKGROUPREPORT

22 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Supreme Court of Nevada

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

ROBIN SWEET
Director and
State Court Administrator

RICHARD A. STEFANI
Deputy Director
Information Technology

JOHN MCCORMICK
Assistant Court Administrator
Judicial Programs and Services

VERISE V. CAMPBELL
Deputy Director
Foreclosure Mediation

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Guardianship Commission

FROM:

Guardianship Data and Technology Workgroup

DATE:

February 18, 2016

SUBJECT:

Report and Recommendations of the Guardianship Data and Technology Workgroup

The Guardianship Data and Technology Workgroup (GDT) met in December 2015 and January 2016.
During these meetings the GDT discussed the implementation of the Commission approved
recommendations of Court Performance Measures (CPM) and utilization of a Guardianship Data
Information Sheet, and how best to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations.
When reviewing how to implement Court Performance Measures, the GDT determined that current
Nevada law concerning guardianship matters complicates the implementation of Age of Active Pending
Case and Time to Disposition performance measurements due to how cases are to be filed, tracked, and
adjudicated. For instance, NRS 159.057 allows for, but does not require, multiple proposed wards to be
filed under a single petition. A case filed with multiple wards therefore cannot be tracked individually
and complicates when a case is closed, reopened, and adjudicated. Further, CPM cannot be uniformly
applied to guardianship matters since some cases reflect multiple wards and other cases reflect single
wards. To address this issue, the GDT recommended to the Guardianship Commission that a court rule
be established directing that guardianship cases be filed with a single petition for a single ward.
Members of the Commission expressed concern over the impact of imposing filing fees for each
individual considering multiple parties can currently file under a single petition. At the request of the
Commission, this issue was tabled until it could be further researched by the GDT and AOC staff,
including if a remedy existed for waiving filing fees.
At the next Commission meeting, the GDT presented their findings on filings fees and waivers. The
GDT presented that filing fees are being assessed inconsistently in the State. In addition, the GDT
explained the impact of a court rule requiring separate petitions for separate wards would not cause a
significant fiscal impact for minor guardianships, as they typically have no filing fees associated with
them due to not having estate values. For adult guardianships the fiscal impact would also be minimal,
as it appears most adult guardianship matters generally only have one ward per petition. Upon reviewing
the applicability of fee waivers on guardianship matters, the GDT could find no additional mechanism
for waiving filing fees other than a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Supreme Court Building 201 South Carson Street, Suite 250 Carson City, Nevada 89701 (775) 684-1700 Fax (775) 684-1723
Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Avenue, 17th floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
23 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

The GDT has discussed the implementation of CPM in all District Courts. Since the GDT workgroup
was created, the Judicial Council of the State of the Nevada, Court Administration Committee created
the USJR Phase III Working Group which is currently formulating CPM for Age of Active Pending
Case and Time to Disposition for all case types, including guardianship matters. The GDT, which has
several members on the USJR Phase III working group, is taking into consideration the Phase III model
and methodology being created and standardized to ensure consistent statewide CPM.
In addition to the discussions of CPM, the GDT has drafted and disseminated a draft of the Guardianship
Information Sheet to the GDT members courts for consideration and feedback. The draft Guardianship
Information Sheet was created by combining three currently used guardianship information sheets, as
well as by adding additional information required by NRS and additional items discussed in the GDT
and Commission meetings. Once the information sheet is reviewed, the GDT will submit it to the
Commission and seek permission to disseminate it statewide for review and comment.
Finally, the GDT has discussed and is following the implementation of various court applications being
utilized by GDT members in the effort to track post adjudicatory proceedings in guardianship matters.
This information sharing is enabling new ideas and the development of best practices to improve the
management of guardianship matters in Nevada.

24 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

GUARDIANSHIPFILINGFEES

25 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

GUARDIANSHIPFEES
STATE

PURPOSE

FEE

CITATION/NOTES

Arizona

PetitionforTemporaryAppointofGuardian/Conservator
PetitiontoAppointGuardian/Conservator
PetitiontoAppointSuccessor
PetitiontoTerminateGuardianIffiledbyappointedguardian
SeverancePetition/TerminateParentalRights
ClerksFee/CourtControlledFunds

$213
$213
$213
NoFee
NoFee
$27.00

California

Petitionforappointmentofconservator,guardianoftheestateorguardianof
thepersonandestateoroppositiontothesepetitionsotherthancompeting
petitionforappointment

$435

Oppositiontopetitionforappointmentofconservator,guardianoftheestateor
guardianofthepersonandestatefiledbyoronbehalfofconservateeor
proposedwardoraparentoftheproposedward
Petitionforappointmentofguardianofthepersononlyoroppositiontopetition
otherthancompetingpetitionforappointment
Oppositiontopetitionbytheproposedwardortheparentoftheproposedward
Petitionoroppositionfiledafterissuanceoflettersofguardianshipor
temporaryguardianship,inguardianshipofthepersononly
Firstofsubsequentpetitionfortemporarylettersofconservatorshipor
guardianship
PetitionforAppointmentofGuardianforAdult
PetitionRequestingColoradoacceptguardianshipfromsendingstate
Registrationandrecognitionofguardianshipordersfromotherstatesandsworn
statement

NoFee

(Note:Created10/23/98;
DoNotUse912forthis
event.ChangeperQTR,
perCaseforaction
performed)
GC70653(a),(b)
70602.5,70602.6

CaliforniaGovernment
Code
GC70653(f)

Colorado

$225
NoFee
NoFee

GC70654(a),(b),70602.5

GC70654(e)
GC70657(e)

$60

GC70657(a)(4)

$164
$164
$164

26 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Delaware

Florida

Petitionorapplicationtoappointguardianforminor(inclusiveofallinitialfiling
fees)
Petitionorapplicationtoappointguardianforadisabledperson(inclusiveofall
filingfees)
Petitionorapplicationinconnectionwithtortsettlement(inclusiveofallinitial
filingfees)
Foraruletoshowcauseinapendingaction
Petitionorapplicationtoremoveaguardian
Petitionorapplicationtoappointasuccessorguardian
Petitionorappointmenttoexpend
Petitionorapplicationtoinitiateorincreasemonthlyallotment
Petitionorapplicationtoreinvest
Petitionorapplicationtosellrealestate
Petitionorapplicationtoacceptforeignguardianship
Petitionorapplicationtotransferguardianship
Promissorynoteforguardianborrowingfromaccount
Transferoffunds
Thirdpartycertificationofcompliancewithorder
Filinganexceptiontoguardianshipaccounting
Formaladministration,guardianship,ancillary,curatorship,orconservatorship
Guardianshipofpersononly
VeteransAdministrationguardianship
Petitionfordeterminationofincapacity
Openinganyestateofonedocumentormore,includingbutnotlimitedto:
Petitionsandorderstoapprovesettlementofminorsclaims;opensafedeposit
box;toenterroomsandplaces;determineheirs(ifnotformaladministration);
foreignguardiantomanagepropertyofnonresident.Notforissuanceofletters
orordersofsummaryadministration
Caveat
Exemplifiedcertificates
Guardianshipauditfee,initialinventory,above$25,000
Guardianshipauditfee,annualfinancialreturn:

$125

$125

$125

$50
$50
$50
$35
$35
$35
$50
$50
$50
$25
$15
$3
$100
$400
$235
$235
$231
$231

$41
$7
$85

27 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Forestatesvaluedat$25,000orless
Forestatesvaluedat$25,000to$100,000
Forestatesvaluedat$100,000to$500,000
Forestatesvaluedatmorethan$500,000
Hawaii
GuardianshipInitialFilingFee($100)
Surcharge($65)
ComputerSystemSurcharge($50)
Idaho
Petitionforappointmentofguardianorreceiptandacceptanceofforeign
guardianship

Consenttotestamentaryappointmentasguardianwithoutpetition

StatusReports
IowaKane GuardianDisabledperson
County16th
Circuit

GuardianEstateofdisabledperson

GuardianPersonandestateofdisabledperson

GuardianMinorDCFScase

GuardianMinorperson

GuardianPersonandestateofminorperson

GuardianSmallEstateRealestateandpersonnotexceeding$15,000

GuardianWhenlettersissuedinestatetoguardianofperson,butnotestate

GuardianCollectionofjudgmentorsettlementofclaimforwrongfuldeath
withnootheradministrationanddoesnotexceed$5,000

GuardianCollectionofjudgmentorsettlementofclaimforwrongfuldeath
withnootheradministration
Mass.
AppointmentofaGuardianPetition

$20
$85
$170
$250
$215
Motionsno
fee
$118

$118
$25
$167

$167
$167
$167
$167
$167
$132
$112
$112

$142

NoFee

NoFee
NoFee
NoFee

Note:Thereisno
separatefeefortheinitial
appointmentbondofa
fiduciaryortheinitial
Lettersofappointment.

Expand,modify,limitpowersofaguardian,petition
ResignationofConservatororGuardian,petition
TerminationofConservatororGuardian,petition

28 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Michigan

RequestforNoticeofGuardianshipOrdersNoproceedingpending

$150

RequestforNoticeofGuardianshipOrdersProceedingpending

$201

PetitionforFullorLimitedGuardianship,includingrequestforTemporary
Guardianshiponsamepetition.
Annualreportonconditionofward
Account2
ForeachaccountfilediforderedbythecourtpursuanttoMCR5.409(C)(1)MCL
600.880b(1)
PetitionbyCourtAppointedAttorneyinresponsetoguardianshipreview
Anyotherpaper,nomatterhowtitled,whichrequestsrelieforrequiresa
hearingorrulingofthecourtwhenproceedingpending.
Filedbytheward
Anyotherpaper,nomatterhowtitled,whichrequestsrelieforrequiresa
hearingorrulingofthecourtwhenproceedingpending.
Filedbyanyoneelse
Estates,trusts,guardianships,conservatorshipsFirstpaperfiled

$150

Minnesota

NoFee
$203

MCL700.5104,MCL
600.880a(1)
MCL600.880b(1)

MCL600.880a(1),MCR
2.119(G)(2)

NoFee
NoFee

MCL600.880b(2)

$204

MCL600.880b(1)

Thisfeeincludesabase
feeof$310+Technology
fee$2+LawLibraryFee
$12Minn.State.
357.021,subd.2(1),
subd.2b,134A.09,
134A.10

$324

1
2

The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.
Thisreferstoanaccountofanytype,including,butnotnecessarilylimitedto,anannualaccount,anamendedaccount,afinalaccount,aninterimaccount,asupplementalaccount,and

anaccountwithzeroreceiptsanddisbursements.Thefilingfeeistobeappliedtoeachaccountfiled,regardlessofthenumberofseparateaccounts.TheaccountisnotsubjecttoMCR
2.119(G)(2)becauseitisnotamotion.

3
4

The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.
The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.

29 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Nebraska

New
Hampshire5

GuardianshipFilingFee
DocketFee/JudgesRetirementFee
Judgesretirementfee
Legalservicesfee(onepercase)
Automationfee(onepercase)
NSCEducationfee
Disputeresolutionfee(onepercase)
IndigentDefensefee(onepercase)
UniformDataAnalysisfee(onepercase)
Total(perpetitionregardlessofthenumberofwards)
Petitionforguardianshipofincapacitatedperson

$20
$2
$2
$5.25
$8
$1
$.75
$3
$1
$43
$240

NRS33126.02
NRS33126.02
NRS24703
NRS33107.01
NRS33107.03
NRS33154
NRS33155
NRS33156
NRS47633

Petitionforguardianshipofminorperson

$130

Petitionforguardianshipofminor(estateonlyorpersonandestate)

$200

$200
$50

Pluscertifiedmailcostsof
$6.92foreachpersonto
receivetheorderof
notice.
Pluscertifiedmailcostsof
$6.92foreachpersonto
receivetheorderof
notice.

$85

$117

$5

Petitionforguardianofincompetentveteran
Motionforsuccessorguardianofperson(only)appliestobothguardianof
incapacitatedpersonandguardianofminor

Motionforsuccessorguardianofestateorofpersonandestateappliesto
bothGuardianofincapacitatedpersonandguardianofminor
NewMexico ProbateCaseFilingFee(includeswills,estatesmiscellaneous,guardianship,
13thJD
conservatorship,adoption,andtrust)

ClerksOfficeChargesaFeeforFormPacketsGuardianship/Conservatorshipof
AdultandKinship/GuardianshipofMinor

EFiledCasesonly.Feesinclude$25surchargeperProbateDivisionRule169,I(q)andFamilyDivisionRule1.3,L(1).Feesalsoinclude$20eFilingfeeifapplicable.

30 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Oklahoma

Guardianship

Applicationforrelativeguardianship

GuardianshipAnnualReport

Proceedingforsaleorleaseofrealorpersonalpropertyormineralinterestin
probateorguardianship
Petitionforappointmentofguardianorforfilinganappearanceina
guardianshipproceeding
Filingananswer,motion,orobjectionbyrespondent,protectedperson,the
OfficeoftheLongTermCareOmbudsmanorthesystemdescribedinORS
192.517
Requestfornotice

Certifiedcopyofletterstestamentary,administration,conservatorship,and
guardianship
Registeringforeignguardianshiporder

Oregon

Rhode
Island

Appearanceinmatterofforeignguardianship
FeesenumeratedHearingdatetobenotedonreceipt.
The fees in probate courts shall be as follows: for every petition for the
appointmentofacustodian,administrator,guardian,orconservator,orforthe
probateofawill,onepercent(1.0%)ofthepersonalpropertyofthedecedent
orwardoverwhichthecourthasjurisdiction,butinnoeventshallthefeebe
less than thirty dollars ($30.00) nor more than one thousand five hundred
dollars ($1,500); for every petition of a foreign administrator, executor, or
guardiantotransferorsellrealorpersonalestate,onepercent(1.0%)ofthe
personalpropertyofthedecedent,orwardlocatedinRhodeIsland,butinno
event shall the fee be less than thirty dollars ($30.00) nor more than one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) which fees shall be in lieu of all
subsequent filing and recording fees in the same proceedings, except as

$134
$1
$50

$33
$1
$43
$1
$111
NoFee

28O.S.152A.3
19O.S.220
10O.S.21.5F.3

28O.S.152A.4
19O.S.220
28O.S.152A.5
19O.S.220
ORS21.145(3);ORS
21.175(1)
ORS125.075(4)

$252

ORS21.135(1),(2)(g);ORS
125.060(4)
$5+25cents ORS21.258;CJO14
perpage
066(8)
$111
ORS21.145;ORS125.842

$111
ORS21.145;ORS125.842

332221
Uponpaymentofanyfee
enumeratedinthis
section,theclerkofthe
courtshallissueawritten
receipttotheperson
makingpayment.Inthe
eventthatthematter
filedwiththecourtcalls
forahearing,theclerkof
thecourtshallnotethe
hearingdateandtimeon
6

31 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

hereinafterprovided,andshallbepaidbeforethepetitionisfiled,andshallbe
based upon estimates submitted by the petitioner or someone on his or her
behalf,andshallbesubjecttorevisionwheneveritappearsthattheestimates
were incorrect, and upon revision a further payment or rebate shall be made
promptly. In the event that the appointment of a custodian, pending the
appointmentofanadministrator,guardian,orconservator,ortheprobateofa
will,isnecessary,thefeesopaidforthepetitionshallbeappliedontheamount
tobepaiduponthefilingofapetitionfortheappointmentoftheadministrator,
guardian, or conservator, or for the probate of the will. The court at any time
may cite in and examine any custodian, executor, administrator, guardian, or
conservatorforthepurposeofdeterminingthefullfeedueandpayable.

thereceiptwhenever
possible;otherwise,as
soonasispracticable
afterthefilingofthe
matter,theclerkofthe
courtshallprovide
writtennoticeofthe
hearingdateandtime
directlytotheperson
filingthematter.
Theclerkofthecourt
shallchargeonedollar
andfiftycents($1.50)per
pageandthreedollars
($3.00)tocertifyany
probatedocumentson
filewiththeprobate
court.

Also,thefollowingfeesshallbecharged:
Foreverypetitiontofileaclaimoutoftime
Foreverypetitionfortheremovalofanexecutor,administrator,guardian,
conservator,orotherfiduciary
Foreverypetitionforappointmentofasuccessorguardianundertheuniform
giftstominorsact
Foreveryaffidavitofcompleteadministration
Foreverycertificateofappointment
Foreverypetitionfortaxminimizationorestateplanning
Foreverypetitionforchangeofname
Foreverypetitionforadoption

$30
$30

$30

$30
$5
$30
$30
$30

32 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

South
Dakota
Virginia

Washington

Guardianship(includesallsubsequentpapers)

$25

SDCL16229

GuardianorConservatorshipAppointment(petition)notincludingQual.Fee
Guardianofminorbycourt
Guardianofminorbyclerk
Standbyguardian/conservatorpetition
Standbyguardian/conservatorreinstateondocket
Guardianshipfilingestatewithassetsmorethan$3,000

$20
$84
NoFee
$15
$10
$240

GuardianshiporLimitedGuardianshipforestateslessthan$3,000

NoFee

36.18.020(2)(f)$200
36.18.020(5)(b)$40
judicialsurcharge
11.88.030(3)
11.88.030(2)(b)

NoprepaymentwhenfiledbyAG,butmaybeorderedpaidbyestate
Letterofadministration,guardianship,testamentary
GuardianshiptoEstateCauseCodemigration/noadditionalfeeischargedto
transfertheguardianshipfiletoaprobateproceedingwhenmigrationis
ordered.
Petitionforinitialdetentionbyfamily,guardian,orconservatorJoelsLaw
case)
Juveniledependency,guardianship

$5
NoFee

11.88.150(2)

TotalFeeAssessmentAuthorityRemittance

Nochargeor SSB5269became
filingfee
effective7/24/15
Nofee
13.34.040
36.18.020(2)(a)
$175
$9044A21(c),591
31$75County,44A2
1(c)$15EGCF6

Wisconsin

Neworpendingguardianship

$60

Wyoming

GuardianshiporConservatorship
EstateandProbate

$70
$70

West
Virginia

Guardianship/Conservatorship

54.56,814.66(1)(m)
shouldbefiledwith
registerinprobate

EnforcementofGuardianshipandConservatorship

33 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Guardianshipfilingfees1inotherstates.

GuardianshipFilingFeesinOtherStates
$350
$300

FilingFees

$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0

AZ

Series1 $213

CA

CO

DE

FL

HI

IA

MI

MN

NE

NM

NH

OK

OR

SD

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

$225

$164

$125

$235

$215

$167

$150

$324

$43

$117

$240

$135

$111

$25

$20

$240

$175

$60

$70

Fivestateschargebetween$20$70
Eightstateschargebetween$111$175
Sixstateschargebetween$213and$240
Onestate(Minnesota)charges$324

The filing fees are for person only. California and Florida charge more for person and estate.

34 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

FilingfeesinNevadaareaslowas$0(estate$0$2500)andashighas$544(DouglasCounty)followedby$539(ClarkCounty)and
$532.50(CarsonCity),ifthevalueoftheestateisover$200,000.

35 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

ESTATEVALUE$2,500 $20,000
1

Douglas

19.013 19.020 19.030 19.031

$72
$1.50 $32
$25

19.3135 19.0303/AB652
$10
DCC2.50.060$20

Carson
City

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$20

19.03123
$5
includes
DCC
3.42.020
$10

White
Pine
Esmeralda
Churchill
Lyon
Nye
Storey
Lincoln
Pershing
Humboldt
Eureka
Mineral
Lander
Clark
Washoe
Elko

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$10

$20

$72
$72
$72

$72

$72
$72

$1.50
$1.50
$1.50

$1.50

$1.50
$1.50

$32
$32
$32

$32

$32
$32

$25
$25
$25

$25

$25
$25

$10

$20CC4.90.060
$20Ord.536
$20Ord.389

$20Ord.20094County

Ordinance
DCC3.36.010$10
DCC2.50.060$20

Total
$195.50

$180.50

$10

CMC2.35.010;CMC
2.36.010;CMC
2.37.010

LYOrd.548$10
Ord.256

$170.50
$160.50
$160.50
$160.50
$160.50
$150.50
$149.00
$145.50
$130.50
$130.50
$130.50
NOFEE
NOFEE
NOFEE

$170.50

Additionalfeesincivilactions.Programsforlegalaid.
AB 65 2009 Legislative Session NRS 19.0303 Additional fees in civil actions: Programs for court security. 1. In any county, the board of county commissioners may, in
additiontoanyotherfeerequiredbylaw,imposebyordinanceafilingfeeofnotmorethan$20tobepaidonthecommencementofanycivilactionorproceedinginthedistrict
courtforwhichafilingfeeisrequiredandonthefilingofanyanswerorappearanceinanysuchactionorproceedingforwhichafilingfeeisrequired,exceptasotherwise
requiredpursuanttoNRS19.034.
3
Additionalfeesincivilactions;Probonoprogramsandprogramsforabusedorneglectedchildrenandvictimsofdomesticviolence.
2

36 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

ESTATEVALUE$20,001 $199,999

19.0303
/AB65
$20DCC
2.50.06
0

19.0312

Douglas

19.013 19.020 19.030 19.031 19.0313 19.0302/

54
AB655
$72
$1.50 $32
$25
$10
$99

Clark

$72

$3.00

$32

$25

$99

$10includes
CCC
2.32.040(a)

$10

$15
includes
CCC
2.32.010

Carson
City

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

$20
includes
CCC
2.32.08
0

19.0313 19.0315
7

$10

Ordinance Total

$5includes
DCC
3.42.020

DCC
3.36.010
$10
DCC
3.48.020
$20

$294.50

$286.00

CMC
$279.50
2.35.010;
NRS
.0313(3);
CMC
2.36.010:
19.03135;
CMC
2.37.010;
NRS
19.315;
Totals$50

Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsforpreventionandtreatmentofabuseofalcoholanddrugs.

AB652009LegislativeSessionOnthefilingofapetitionforletterstestamentary,lettersofadministrationoraguardianship,whichfeedoesnotincludethecourt
feeprescribedbyNRS 19.020,tobepaidbythepetitioner:
(1) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$200,000ormore....................$352
(2) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateismorethan$20,000butlessthan$200,000$99
(3) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$20,000orless,nofeemaybechargedorcollected.
6
7

Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsofmediationincasesinvolvingcustodyorvisitationofchild;neighborhoodjusticecenters.
Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsforalternativedisputeresolution.

37 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Washoe
White
Pine
Elko

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$10

$99

$20

ProBono
$10

$274.50
$269.50

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

$20

Esmeralda
Lyon
$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

Nye
Churchill

$72
$72

$1.50
$1.50

$32
$32

$25
$25

$10

$99
$99

Storey
Lincoln

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

Pershing
Humboldt
Lander
Eureka
Mineral

$72
$72

$1.50
$1.50

$32
$32

$25
$25

$99
$99

$20
includes
ECC04
2009

$20
Ord.
536

$20CC
4.090.0
60

$20
Ord.
200904
County

LYOrd
548$10

$269.50
$259.50

Ord.256

$259.50
$259.50

$259.50
$249.50

$249.00
$244.50
$244.50
$229.50
$229.50

$269.50

38 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

ESTATEVALUE$200,000+

Douglas

19.013 19.020 19.030 19.031 19.0313 19.0302/

5
AB658
$72
$1.50 $32
$25

$349

19.0303/
AB65
$20DCC
2.50.060

Clark

$72

$3.00

$32

$25

$352

Carson
City

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$352

$20
includes
CCC
2.32.080

Washoe
White
Pine

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$10

$352

19.0312

19.0313 19.0315 Ordinance Total

/AB535
$5includes $10

DCC
$544.50
DCC
3.36.010
3.42.020
$10
DCC
3.48.020
$20
$10
$10
$15

$539.00
includes
includes
CCC
CCC
2.32.040(a)
2.32.010

CMC
$532.50
2.35.010;
NRS
.0313(3);
CMC
2.36.010:
19.03135;
CMC
2.37.010;
NRS
$50total

$527.50

ProBono
$522.50
$10

8
AB652009LegislativeSessionOnthefilingofapetitionforletterstestamentary,lettersofadministrationoraguardianship,whichfeedoesnotincludethecourt
feeprescribedbyNRS 19.020,tobepaidbythepetitioner:
(1) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$200,000ormore....................$352
(2) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateismorethan$20,000butlessthan$200,000$99
(3) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$20,000orless,nofeemaybechargedorcollected.

39 of 40

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials

Elko

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$352/$10

Esmeralda
Churchill $72

$1.50

$32

$25

$10

$352

Lyon

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$352

Nye

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$352/$10

Storey
Lincoln

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$352

Pershing
Humboldt
Lander
Eureka
Mineral

$72
$72

$1.50
$1.50

$32
$32

$25
$25

$352
$352

$20
includes
ECC04
2009

$20CC
4.090.060
$20LY
Ord.536
Ord.
256/$20

$20Ord.
200904
County

$20

$522.50

$522.00
$512.50

$512.50

LYOrd
548$10

$512.50

$512.50
$502.50

$502.50
$497.50
$497.50
$482.50
$482.50

40 of 40