 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mainor v. Nault11/22/2004
receive $32,000 per month for the rest of his life, and Rene would receive a guaranteed sum of $1,942,871 over her lifetime, the district court properly determined that the settlement was fair and reasonable with respect to Jason and Rene. Although there was no mention that Louise would also receive an annuity and a significant lump sum payment, no approval was required for the settlement of Louise's claim, as she was not a ward under guardianship. Regardless of the amount that Louise would receive, the district court had sufficient information to determine that Jason's needs were met.
Second, the Naults contend that the settlement approval order was void because it violated Jason's due process rights. They contend that failure to appoint an independent guardian to represent Jason's interests deprived Jason of procedural due process because of his guardian's conflict of interest, and the failure to present all material facts to the district court deprived him of substantive due process.
We conclude that this argument lacks merit. First, procedural due process generally is violated when the adjudicator, not the guardian, has a conflict of interest. There is no evidence that the district court was biased toward any party.
Second, even if Louise's guardianship of Jason created a conflict of interest, there was no evidence at the settlement approval hearing that Jason's needs would not be fully met by the settlement agreement. The substantive due process claim lacks merit because substantive due process concerns the adequacy of the government's reason for depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It is not meant to protect against alleged fraud upon the court by private individuals.
Third, the Naults assert that the order was void for lack of jurisdiction because, without the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Jason, the family court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over Jason's claims.
NRS 159.093 (1993) provided that:
A guardian of the estate shall demand, sue for and receive all debts and other choses in action due to the ward. A guardian of the estate, with prior approval of the court by order, may compound or compromise any such debt or other chose in action and give a release and discharge to the debtor or other obligor.
The 1993 version of NRS 159.015 defined "court" as "any court or judge having jurisdiction of the persons and estates of minors, incompetent persons, or persons of limited capacity." The 1993 version of NRS 3.223 provided, in relevant part, that:
1. In each judicial district in which it is established, the family court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any proceeding:
(a) brought pursuant to chapter . . . 159 . . . of NRS.
When read together, it appears that the family court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianships and that the guardian of the ward's estate must seek the family court's approval before agreeing to a settlement on behalf of the ward. Although Mainor and Harris argue that NRS 3.220 gives district courts "equal coextensive and concurrent jurisdiction and power," NRS 3.220 is more nuanced than Mainor and Harris suggest because it provides that district judges have concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction. This allows district judges to preside over proceedings in districts other than their own, but does not give district courts concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction over matters reserved to family courts. Furthermore, the Legislature, by creating family courts and giving them exclusive original jurisdiction over certain matters, removed oversight of guardianships from the district court's jurisdiction in jurisdictions tha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|