2 26 16 NV Guardianship Agenda and Meeting Materials

7/24/2019 2 26 16 NV Guardianship Agenda and Meeting Materials

1/41

Nevada Supreme Court

Commission to Study the Administration of

Guardianships in Nevadas Courts

February 26, 2016, Meeting Materials


2/41

AGENDA

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

February 26, 2016, Agenda and Meeting Materials


3/41

Supreme Court of Nevada

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

ROBIN SWEET RICHARDA.STEFANI

Director and Deputy DirectorState Court Administrator Information Technology

JOHN MCCORMICK VERISEV.CAMPBELLAssistant Court Administrator Deputy DirectorJudicial Programs and Services Foreclosure Mediation

MEETING

NOTICE

AND

AGENDA

NameofOrganization:

SupremeCourtCommissiontoStudytheCreationandAdministrationofGuardianships

InNevadasCourts

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

PlaceofMeeting:

LASVEGAS CARSONCITY ELKO

RegionalJusticeCenter

NevadaSupremeCourt

200LewisAve.,

17th

Floor,Courtroom

NevadaSupremeCourt

201S.CarsonStreet

LawLibrary,Room107

FourthJudicialDistrict

571IdahoStreet

Dept.2

AGENDA

I. CalltoOrder

a. CallofRollandDeterminationofQuorum

b. ApprovalofMeetingSummaryfromJanuary22,2016(pages519)(forpossibleaction)

II. PublicComment

Because

of

time

considerations,

the

period

for

public

comment

by

each

speaker

will

be

limited

to

3minutes,andspeakersareurgedtoavoidrepetitionofcommentsmadebypreviousspeakers.

III. Presentation

a. SecondJudicialDistrictsDataCollectionProcess(JudgeDoherty,JudgeWalker,Craig

Franden,CraigSmith,HollyLujan)




4/41

V. Updates(forpossibleaction)

a. CAPTechnicalAssistanceAward(RileyWilson)

b. Compliance AB325(SusanHoyandKimSpoon)

c. MinorGuardianshipStatute(JudgeWalker)

d. Data/ITSubcommittee(StephanieHeyingforHansJessup)(pages2324)

e. GuardianshipFilingFees(StephanieHeying)(pages2640)

f.

Eighth

and

Second

Judicial

District

Working

Groups

(Judge

Steel

&

Judge

Doherty)

VI. SubcommitteeAppointments(JusticeHardesty)

a. BillofRightsSubcommittee

b. LegalRepresentationSubcommittee

c. GALSubcommittee

d. PhysiciansCertificateandDefinitions/Terms

VII.

OtherBusiness

a. Lock BoxesNominatedGuardian(RanaGoodman)

VIII. FutureMeetingDates

a. April1,2016

b. April22,2016

c. May20,2016

IX. Adjournment

Actionitemsarenotedby(forpossibleaction)andtypicallyincludereview,approval,denial,and/orpostponementofspecificitems. Certainitemsmaybereferredto

asubcommitteeforadditionalreviewandaction.

AgendaitemsmaybetakenoutoforderatthediscretionoftheChairinordertoaccommodatepersonsappearingbeforetheCommissionand/ortoaidinthetime

efficiencyof

the

meeting.

Ifmembersofthepublicparticipateinthemeeting,theymustidentifythemselveswhenrequested. PubliccommentiswelcomedbytheCommissionbutmaybe

limitedtothreeminutesperpersonatthediscretionoftheChair.

TheCommissionispleasedtoprovidereasonableaccommodationsformembersofthepublicwhoaredisabledandwishtoattendthemeeting. Ifassistanceis

required,pleasenotifyCommissionstaffbyphoneorbyemailnolaterthantwoworkingdayspriortothemeeting,asfollows:StephanieHeying,(775)6879815

email:[email protected]

ThismeetingisexemptfromtheNevadaOpenMeetingLaw(NRS241.030(4)(a))

At the discretion of the Chair topics related to the administration of justice judicial personnel and judicial matters that are of a confidential nature may be closed to




5/41

MEETING

SUMMARY




6/41





JOHN MCCORMICK VERISEV.CAMPBELLAssistant Court Administrator Deputy DirectorJudicial Programs and Services Foreclosure Mediation

MEETINGSUMMARY

Prepared

by

Stephanie

Heying

and

Raquel

Rodriguez

Administrative

Office

of

the

Courts

SupremeCourtCommissiontoStudytheCreationandAdministrationof

GuardianshipsinNevadasCourts

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

PlaceofMeeting:

Carson

City

Las

Vegas

Elko

NevadaSupremeCourt

201SouthCarsonSt.

LawLibrary,Room107

RegionalJusticeCenter

200LewisAve.

17th

Floor,Courtroom

Fourth Judicial District

Court

571 IdahoStreet,Dept.

2

Members

Present:

ChiefJusticeJamesW.Hardesty,chair

ChiefJudgeMichaelGibbons

JudgeFrancesDoherty

JudgeNancyPorter

JudgeCynthiaDianneSteel

Judge

Egan

Walker

Senator

Becky

Harris

AssemblymanMichaelC.Sprinkle

AssemblymanGlennE.Trowbridge

TrudyAndrews

Julie Arnold

JayP.Raman

SallyRamm

KimRowe

TerryRussell

ChristineSmith

DavidSpitzer

Kim

Spoon

Timothy

Sutton

SusanSweikert

ElyseTyrell

AOC Staff




7/41

I.

CalltoOrder

a.

Callof

Roll

and

Determination

of

Quorum

Chairman Hardesty called the Commission to Study the Creation and Administration of Guardianships

(Commission)toorderat1p.m.Aquorumwaspresent.

b. ApprovalofMeetingSummaryfromDecember15,2015,meeting.

The

December

15,

2015,

meeting

summary

was

unanimously

approved.

II. PublicComment

PublicCommentswere transcribedverbatimandare includedasa separateattachment to themeeting

summary.

III. Updates

Complaints/Reports

Mr. Jay Raman has beenworking closelywith Las VegasMetropolitan Police Departments (LVMPD) Abuse and

NeglectDivision.Meetingmaterialsincludedanemailthatwassentto lawenforcementsupporttechnicians,patrol

servicerepresentatives,andpatrolofficersbyLieutenantJamesWeiskopf,SpecialVictimsSection,LVMPD.Theemail

restatespeoplewho take reportsat the stationdoneed to take the reportand if theyhavequestionsabout the

natureofthecomplaint,theyshouldcontacttheAbuseandNeglectDetailforfurtherguidance.Peoplehaveaduty

tobe

mandatory

reporters

and

ifsomeone

is

not

willing

to

take

that

report

then

they

are

not

able

to

fulfill

their

legal

obligations.Additionally, ifsomeoneseesornotices thatsomeone isbeingexploitedorabused,whether theyare

underguardianshipornot,theyneedtoreporttheexploitationand/orabuse.Mr.Ramanwouldcontinuetowork

withlawenforcement.Thisisanongoingprocessandthiswasapositivestepintherightdirection.

ConservatorshipAccountabilityProject(CAP)Award

Mr.RileyWilsonreportedtheEighthJudicialDistrictCourt,withtheapprovaloftheNevadaSupremeCourt,applied

forand

was

awarded

atechnical

assistance

grant

through

the

National

Center

for

State

Courts

(NCSC).

The

grant

allows theDistrict tobecomeapilot state for theConservatorshipAccountabilityProject (CAP).Minnesota,along

withNCSC,developedCAP,whichincludesanapplicationviaawebsitethatallowsguardianstoenterinventoriesand

accountings.Onlinetraining,includingYouTubevideos,isavailabletohelpeducatethosefillingouttheapplications.

The software isopen source so any changes theDistrictmightmakewouldbe sharedwithother statesandvice

versa.TheDistrictsITDepartment isworkingonthe licensingagreementandthe implementationofthesoftware.




8/41

AssemblyBill325LicensurePrivateProfessionalGuardians

TheFinancial

Institutions

Division

(FID)

held

aworkshop

in

December,

allowing

Private

Professional

Guardians

(PPG)

aforumto listtheir issues/concernsregardingdraftregulationsforthe licensingrequirementsofPPGspursuantto

thepassingofAssemblyBill325.Ms.SpoonreportedFID listenedtotheconcernsexpressedbythePPGsandhave

madesomegoodchanges intheseconddraft, includingreducingthe licensingfeeto$500.ThePPGsareuncertain

howmuchotherfees,suchasauditing,willcost.ThePPGswerepleasedFIDlistenedtotheirconcernsandtheyare

workingtogether ingoodfaith.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 isonlyone company thatwill issue this typeofbond.Ms.Hoyexplained thatunder

section33ofAB325thereweretwobondingcomponents.(1)BondingasitappliestoNRS159and(2)bondingasit

appliestothebusinessandtheemployeesofthebusiness.TherewerenoissueswiththebondasitappliedtoNRS

159.Theissuewaswiththebondforthebusinessandemployeesduetotheliability.Manyofthebondcompanies

requested

that

a

form

be

provided

from

the

state.

Ms.

Hoy

contacted

FID

about

the

form

and

FID

told

her

they

did

nothavea form;Ms.Hoyneeded to let the insurance companyknow sheneededa fidelitybond.The insurance

companiessaidtheyneededtheformtodeterminerisk.Ms.Hoysofficewasableto locatean insurancecompany

outofMissourithatwouldwritethebond,coveringupto10employees.Ms.Hoynotedthemain issue ishowthe

statutereads,isitonebondcoveringallemployeesorisabondrequiredforeachemployee.Therearequestionsas

towherethe$25,000figurecamefrom,andwherethestateformis.

SenateBill362ResidentandNonresidentAgent

JusticeHardestyhas had severalmeetingswith the Secretaryof StatesOffice (SOS) to discuss the provisionsof

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

appointmentof registeredagentsonly inabusinesscontext,whichdoesnot fitsquarelywith theappointmentof

registeredagentsinaWard/Guardiancontext.

Thebasic requirementsof registeredagents,as specified inNRSChapter77andNACChapter77,areminimal. In

d d d b l f ll d bl




9/41

In fillingouttheRegisteredAgentAcceptance form, theregisteredagentmustprovidehisorhernameandstreet

address.Thenamedlocationmust:

1. Beanactualphysicaladdress in thisState (postofficeboxes,maildrops,mail forwardingorothermail

servicecompaniesareprohibited);

2. Beopenduringnormalworkinghours;

3. Bestaffedbyat leastonenaturalpersonwho isofsuitableageanddiscretiontoreceiveserviceof legal

processandanydemandornoticeauthorizedbylaw;and

4.

Have operations sufficient to allow for proper service of all legal process and any demand or notice

authorizedbylawtobeservedupontheentityrepresentedbytheagent.

Thebasicstatutorydutiesofregisteredagentsareasfollows:

1. To forwardto therepresentedentityat theaddressmost recentlysuppliedtotheagentbytheentityany

process,noticeordemandthatisservedontheagent;

2. ToprovidethenoticessentbytheSOStotheentity;

The obligations of Registered Agentswhen resigning could present a problem in theWard/Guardian context. A

registered

agent

for

a

business

entity

has

a

duty

to

notify

the

entity

upon

resignation

with

the

SOS,

and

the

resigning

RegisteredAgentsdutiescease30daysafter filing forresignation,orearlier ifareappointmenthasoccurred.The

sameresignationprocessintheWard/GuardiancontextcouldleavetheNonresidentGuardianwithoutaRegistered

Agent iftheresigningRegisteredAgentfailed inthisdutytonotifytheNonresidentGuardian,andthecourtwould

not,inanycase,beawareofaresignationandreassignment.Currently,anappointmentofaRegisteredAgentfora

nonregisteredentity,whichishowwearecurrentlytreatingappointmentsrelatedtoWard/Guardians,expiresin5

years.

Currently,

on

a

form

developed

for

this

purpose,

the

following

information

is

collected:

NameoftheWard

Name,address,andsignatureoftheNonresidentGuardian

Name,address,andsignatureofacceptanceofappointment,oftheregisteredagent

A feeof$60 iscollectedwith the filing.Afterentry intothedatabase, the informationabove issearchableon the

BusinessEntitySearchbytheWardsname.SOSrequiresacopyofthecourtorderwiththefiling,althoughSOShave

onlyrecently

begun

doing

so.

Those

who

did

not

provide

acopy

of

the

court

order

are

being

contacted

to

do

so.

NRS77givesourofficebroadregulatoryauthorityrelatedtotheappointmentofRegisteredAgents.Whileweare

notfamiliarwiththenonresidentguardianprocess,SOSwelcomesanyguidancefromtheCommissionaswedevelop

processesrelatedtotheappointmentofregisteredagentsforCourtAppointedNonresidentGuardiansofAdults.It

may be that additional specific requirements are needed to address the unique circumstances surrounding the




10/41

DoestheCommissionforeseeaCommercialRegisteredAgentequivalentintheWard/Guardiancontext?

Does the Commission envision different or additional duties to apply to Registered Agents of Court

AppointedNonresident

Guardians?

Would the Commission require certain record retention duties of Registered Agents of CourtAppointed

NonresidentGuardians?

WouldtheCommissionpreferaprovisionrelatedtoresignationoftheRegisteredAgentwherebythecourtis

notifiedatthetimeofresignationandsubsequentreassignment?

Woulditbebesttonotapplythe5yearexpirationtoappointmentsrelatedtoWard/Guardians?

TheCommissionmay alsowish to address thepenalties,asoutlined inNRS77.447, associatedwithviolationsof

RegisteredAgents,

and

perhaps

the

notification

associated

with

alleged

violations,

to

include

notification

to

the

court,whichordered the appointment and the representednonresident guardian.Currently,only theRegistered

Agentmustbenotified.

JusticeHardestynotedtheSOShasregulatoryauthoritytohandlesomeofthequestionsposedbutsomemightneed

tobeaddressed legislatively.ThereneedstobecoordinationbetweenthecourtsandtheSOSofficetomakesure

this importantcompliancepiece isbeingaddressed.This isnotassimpleas itseemsand there isa lot todo.The

questionswouldbedistributedtomembersfortheirreviewandthiswouldbeaddedasanagendaitemforthenext

Commissionmeeting.

Justice

Hardesty

requested

the

lawyers

on

the

Commission

and

requested

Judge

Doherty

and

JudgeSteeltogobacktotheirBenchBarsanddiscussthisissue.Theissuesneedtobevettedandtheordersentered

bythecourtappointingnonresidentguardiansneedtobefurnishedtotheSOSOfficeandtheSOSOfficeneedsto

notifythecourtifsomeoneresigns.

Data/ITSubcommitteeUpdate

Mr.HansJessupprovidedareportfromtheData/ITSubcommittee.TheSubcommitteediscussedhowtobestcount

andmeasure

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 ormore

proposedwardswhoarechildrenofacommonparent,parentandchildorhusbandandwife,itisnotnecessarythat

separatepetitionsbondsandotherpapersbefiledwithrespecttoeachproposedwardorwards.Thiscouldcreate

an issue indetermining courtperformancemeasures. Forexample, if there aremultiplewardsoneof thewards

mightageoutorpassawayandtheotherwarddoesnot,sothecasemightbearbitrarilyextended.Inthiscase,there

would not be onetoonemeasurements for performancemeasures. The Subcommittee reviewedwhether cases

couldbe filedunderA,B,Cdesignationaswellashow thismightaffectcourtadministration.TheSubcommittee

recommendscreating

acourt

rule

that

cases

are

filed

under

separate

petitions

for

individual

Wards

or

subjects

of

guardianship.Ifnecessary,theNRScouldbeamendedatthenextlegislativesession.

TheCommissionhaddiscussedthereason for filingonepetitionwithmultiplewardswastoavoidadditional filing

fees.Manyoftheminorguardianshipcasesdonothavefilingfeesbecausethere isnoestatevalueandunderNRS

Chapter19,nofilingfeeswouldbeassociatedwiththecase.TheSubcommitteereviewedandprovidedalistofthe




11/41

TheCommissiondiscussedtheinconsistencyamongthedistrictsandthattheinterpretationofthestatutesproviding

filing fees creates some uncertainty about what fees should be charged and under what circumstances. The

Commission

discussed

filing

fees

are

tied

to

the

estate

value,

and

in

most

of

the

guardianship

cases,

the

estate

value

wouldnotbeknownatthetimeofthefilingofthepetitionforguardianship.Inaddition,thecourtmaynevertake

jurisdictionofovertheestateinaguardianshipcaseyetthefilingfeeisbasedontheestatevalue.Additionally,NRS

19.020 subparagraph2 states, at the commencementofanyproceeding in anydistrict court for thepurposeof

procuringanappointmentofadministrationupontheestateofanydeceasedperson,orprocuringanappointment

asguardian,theparty institutingtheproceedingshallpaytheclerkofthecourtthesumof$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.Thiswouldbe includedasan

itemfordiscussionatthenextCommissionmeeting.

IV. GeneralPolicyQuestionsandRecommendations

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

remaining

general

policy

questions

beginning

with

question

9.

Question9: DoestheCommissionsupportarecommendationtoadoptSupportiveLivingAgreementssimilarto

theapproachtakeninTexas?

Texashadadoptedapractice/programwherean individualcouldenter intoaSupportiveLivingAgreement (SLA).

JusticeHardestynoted,asamatterofpolicy,whileaSLAseemslikeagoodideatherearenorealprotectionsforthe

Wardthatcomesfromsuchadocument.IfthiswerealessrestrictiveorlessintrusiveinvasionofaWardsrights,it

seems

there

would

need

to

be

some

accountability

to

reduce

the

risk

of

abuse

and

elder

or

Ward

exploitation.

Discussion

CommissionmembersexpressedconcernthattheremightnotbeoversightormonitoringofanSLA.

JudgeDohertystatedtheSecondJudicialDistrictsTaskForce(TaskForce)hasdiscussedthisconcept.TheTaskForce

thinksaSLAwouldaddresstheavoidanceof lifelongguardianshipoversight forsomeyoungadultpersonswhom

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 theneed for statewide consensus. JudgeDohertyencouraged theCommission tonot take thisoff the

bl d ll h k d l h h k ld d h




12/41

JudgeWalkerissupportiveofJudgeDohertyscommentsandsuggestedtyingaSLAwiththeBillofRights.Thiswould

provideprotectionsfortheWardandtheSLAcouldbebolsteredbytheBillofRights,demonstratingthesubstantive

rights

that

Wards

or

persons

subject

to

SLAs

could

have.

TheCommissiondiscussed freedomofcontract. If thepersonhas the freedomofcontract,at leastundernormal

legal standards thatwould be expected of enforceable agreements, then the personmight not be subject to a

guardianshipinanyevent.ThatiswhatTexaswasattemptingtoaddress.JudgeDohertystatedthecourtreceivesa

highvolumeofcasesthatarereferredbytheschooldistrictonceachildturns18(IndividualizedEducationPrograms

(IEPs)).Thisdoesnotnecessarilyencompass theneed foraguardianship from thecourtspointofviewbutmight

encompasstheneedfromtheschooldistrictspointofview,andotheradultserviceprovidersforsomecoordinated

planning.

As

Judge

Walker

is

saying,

tie

it

to

the

Bill

of

Rights

we

can

put

the

Bill

of

Rights

in

statute,

reference

that,

andincorporatetheBillofRightsintoanyagreementthatmightultimatelybeapprovedasanalternativeplan.

Ms.ArnoldisconcernedthatifsomeonewereexploitedunderaSLAthepersonwouldnothavethemeanstobring

thecivilsuitandenforcetheirBillofRights.TheSLAcouldbeintroducingapersontopotentialexploiters.

JusticeHardestynotedhis concern is the conceptof SLAs ispeople could enter into the agreement through any

contractoftheirownfreewill,so ifthere isnocourtorsimilartypeofoversight itwouldbedifficulttoknowhow

many

SLAs

are

out

there.

Justice

Hardesty

is

not

sure

how

Texas

plans

to

capture

this

information

but

it

would

help

tounderstandifthisconcept isworking.JusticeHardestysuggestedtheTaskForceconsiderthis issueaswell.How

doesonedeterminehowSLAsareworking?

JudgeDohertynotedshe ishavingahardtimedistinguishingwhythere isagreater levelofconcern forSLAsthen

thereexistsforpowerofattorneysordurablepowersofattorneys.Individualswhohavethecapacitycanenterinto

thoseagreementsnowandwhetherapersonhasthecapacitytoenterintothoseagreementsisnotreviewedbythe

courts.JudgeDohertyaskedwhytheCommission isdistinguishingbetweenalternativemethodsofcreatingaplan

for

an

adult

who

is

presumed

to

have

capacity

and

whom

we

may

facilitate

more

support

services

for

to

maintain

theirindependencebutwedonothavethatsameworryaboutmorepotentialauthoritythatisgivenunderadurable

powerofattorney.

JudgeDohertywouldbring informationback to theTaskForceandask the representatives fromTexas toprovide

additional informationontheirprocesses.JudgeSteelsuggestedaskingtheTaskForcetofocuson ifthere isaSLA

does thecourthave toauthorizetheSLA. Ifso,doesthatgivethesupportingpersonsorthewraparoundpersons

rightswithvendors in thecommunity,anddo thevendorshave toprovide thesame respect theywouldundera

guardianship.

How

would

this

differ?

Judge

Doherty

would

bring

this

to

the

Task

Force

and

report

to

the

Commission

atthenextmeeting.

Question10:Shouldeveryhearing involvingaWard require theWardspresence,whichcanonlybeexempted

uponmedicalshowingorsomeothergoodcauseapprovedbythecourt?




13/41

hearing.RuralareasmighthaveadifficulttimegettingtheWardtoattendhearingsinpersonbecausetheWardisin

afacilityinanotherareae.g.,theWardmaybe inacutecareinRenobecausethat isthe levelofcarerequiredand

the

rural

community

does

not

have

an

acute

care

facility.

Lack

of

transportation

is

not

a

reason

for

not

attending.

TheCommissiondiscussedallowingaWardtoparticipateviavideoorteleconference.Itwassuggestedthatifcurrent

statutedoesnotallowforthistypeofparticipationitcouldbeaddedtothelanguage.JudgePorterstatedtheFourth

JudicialDistricthasvideoCourtCallavailable.JudgeDohertynotediftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearing

andtheirattorneysaystheydonotwanttoattend,thecourtwouldhonortheirrighttorefuse.TheSecondJudicial

DistrictwouldtrytotalktotheWardviateleconferenceorthroughotherefforts.

Mr.

Rowe

noted

question

10

contemplates

Wards

attending

every

hearing,

not

just

the

initial

hearing.

The

statute

alreadyrequirestheWardtoattendtheinitialhearing,sothequestionisdowegobeyondthatandrequiretheWard

toattendeveryhearing.Therehasbeenemphasisplaced,inWashoeCounty,ontheWardattendingthehearingsin

personunlesstheyareexcused.Asapractitioner,Mr.Rowetriestoaddresstheattendanceoffuturehearingsatthe

initialhearingandevaluatewhetheraWardshouldberequiredtoattendeachhearingonan individualbasis.Mr.

RowedoesnothaveanyproblemsayingtheWardshouldbepresentateveryhearing,sinceeveryhearingaffectsthe

Wards life. The courts oversight and ability to gauge and judge for themselves whether the guardianship is

appropriateorifthescopeoftheguardianshipisappropriateisbeneficial.Ifthereisanappropriatereasontoexcuse

the

Ward

then

they

should

be

excused.

JudgeDohertysaidtheSecondJudicialDistricthasahighpercentageofWardsthatattendthehearingsandthecourt

encourages theirattendance. If theWard isnot inattendance, the firstquestion thecourtasks iswhy. Ifcounsel

waivesbecausetheyconferredwiththepersonthat issufficient forthecourtbutthatrarelyhappens.Theperson

alsomightnotattendinpersonduetoamedicalexcuse.

Mr.Rowestatedthevastmajorityofpeoplesubjecttotheguardianshipwanttobeatthecourthearingsiftheycan

physically

be

there,

or

participate

by

phone

or

through

other

methods.

Only

5

10%

are

too

physically

feeble

or

have

medical reasons why they cannot attend. Washoe County is fortunate because the person subject to the

guardianshiphaslegalrepresentationwhocanspeakforthem.Ifthereisnoonetospeakforthepersonsubjectto

theguardianshipthenitisimperativeforthejudgestomakeafacetofaceevaluation.

Commissionmembersconveyedthe importanceofWardsattendingthehearings inperson. It is imperativethata

personsubjecttoguardianshipbe inattendanceatthe initialhearingwhethertheyarerepresentedbycounselor

not,unlesstheyaremedicallyunabletoattend.Thediscretionshouldbeleftwiththecourtastowhethertheperson

subject

to

guardianships

appearance

is

required.

It

is

important

that

the

judge

is

able

to

see

the

Ward

and

the

Ward

hasarighttohearwhatisbeingsaidaboutthemandtherighttorespond.

Ms.HoyandMs.SpoonstatedtheyworkveryhardtomakesuretheWardsareincourt.Itisveryimportantforthe

personwhoissubjecttotheguardianshiptoattendtheinitialhearingaswellasthehearingsthereafter,evenifthe

Wardhasanappointedattorney.




14/41

firsttimeshewasmeetingaWardwasoverthephone.HowwouldthejudgeknowthatwastheWardonthephone?

JudgeSteelwouldprefermeetingthepersonsubjecttotheguardianshipfacetofaceatthe initialhearing.Shedid

like

the

idea

of

visiting

the

Ward.

Someone

could

visit

the

Ward

and

provide

an

affidavit

that

the

Ward

states

they

willnotattendthehearing.IftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearingitwouldbeperceivedasforcingthemto

attend.TheCommissionhasbeenallabouttheproceedingsnotforcingtheWardstodothingstheydonotwantand

tobelessintrusiveintheirlife,butnowiftheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearingthecourtsaregoingtoforce

themtoattend.JudgeSteelwouldliketheCommissiontothinkabouttheseconcernsbeforemakingahardandfast

rulethatWardshavetoattendeverysinglehearing.JudgeSteelthinksitisveryvaluablefortheWardstoattendand

shelearnsalotbymeetingwiththeWardanditprovidestheopportunitytotalkwiththem,whichishelpful.Sheis

concernedthatmakingahardandfastruleonsomeofthesethingsmightbedetrimental.

SenatorHarrissaidwewanttobesensitivetoeachpersonsproclivitiestocometocourtornot,but ifthere isno

requirementtohavesomekindofvideoorcourtpresencethentheCommissionislosingsightoftheaccountability.

SenatorHarris isconcernedthatthecourtwouldgorightbacktothepossibilityofabusesthattheCommissionhas

beenworking so hard to overcome. The Commission needs tomake certain it is doing its due diligence in the

investigationandmakingsurethoseWards truly requireaguardianshipand thatcircumstanceshavenotchanged

andouraccountabilitymeasure in thatprocess.JudgeSteel responded itmightbehelpful tohavean investigator

thatthecourtcouldsendtovisitwiththeWardandreporttothecourtthattheyvisitedtheWardtomakesurethey

were

ok.

Ms.ArnoldstatediftheCommissionachievesoneofitsearliergoalsofeachWardhavinglegalrepresentationthen

theattorneycouldvisitwiththeWard,inperson,andrepresenttheWardincourt.TheWardslegalrepresentation

couldletthejudgeknowtheyhaveseentheWardandtheWarddoesnotwanttoattendthehearing.Theremight

alsobeWardswhowouldbephysicallydangerousbecausetheyarecombativeormentallyimpairedandcouldattack

someone.Ms.Arnoldthinksthisconceptisaspirational.ItwouldbebeneficialtoseetheWardsateveryhearing,but

thereshouldbeanescapeclauseforsituationswherethereisamedicaloremotionalreasonorthereisanattorney

or

investigator

who

could

report

they

have

seen

the

Ward

and

explained

what

is

going

on

in

court

and

that

the

Ward

doesnotwishtoattendthehearing.Ms.ArnoldthinkstheCommissioncouldachievethoseendswithoutmakingita

statutory requirement to show up in court. JusticeHardesty asked if the exemption for some other good cause

covers that.Mr. Arnold responded shewould hope so.Ms. Arnoldwants it understood that these are types of

situationsthatcouldfallundergoodcause.

JudgeDohertymovedthatquestion10,aswrittenorslightlymodified,encompasseverysinglepersons

commentstodayandthatgoodcausefindingsbeincorporatedintothereferenceofgoodcauseapproved

by

the

court.

Judge

Doherty

added

she

thinks

all

of

the

Commissions

concerns

are

addressed

in

question

10asitiswritten.

JudgeWalkerdoesnotdisagreewiththecommentsaboutattendanceoftheproposedWard.JudgeWalkerstatedin

WashoeCounty there aremoreminorguardianships than adultguardianships and this conversationassumes the

Commissionisonlytalkingaboutadultguardianships.JudgeWalkeroverseesfostercarecasesandwouldnotwanta

h ld d d h h b d f h h f b f l h h



C i i t St d th Ad i i t ti f G di hi i N d ' C t


15/41

AdditionalDiscussion

Mr.

Tim

Sutton

would

be

opposed

to

the

exclusion

of

minors.

Justice

Hardesty

stated

question

10

would

apply

to

adults and the issue ofminorswould be addressed separately. JudgeWalker agrees thatminors should not be

excluded.OneofthechallengesJudgeWalkerhaswiththelawasitiswrittenisaproposedWardinthisstateMUST

attend thehearing for theappointmentof guardian.That includesALLproposedWards rightnow. JudgeWalker

wouldhave infantsandyoungchildren incourtwhoare seeing theirparents forwhomtheyhavebeen removed.

JudgeWalker issuggestingthisshouldbenuanced.Mr.Suttonagreedwith theconcerns JudgeWalker raisedand

wouldbeokwiththemotionaslongasminorswouldbeaddressedseparately.JusticeHardestystatedyes.

Ms.

Heying

took

a

roll

call

vote.

Yea

25;

Nay

0;

Excused/Absent

1.

Question11:ShouldthenoticerequirementsinChapter159beamendedandifsohow?

JusticeHardestystatedthethresholdquestionsare:

WhatarethepresentrequirementsunderNRSChapter159fornoticeofguardianshipinitially?

Whomustreceivenotice?

How

is

notice

proven?

Howisnoticedocumented?

Whatrulingsdoesthejudgemakeaboutnoticebeforestartingintothemeritsoftheproceedings?

JudgeDohertyexplainedtheSecondJudicialDistrictlooksfornoticeattheinitialfilingandreviewstoseeifnoticeis

provided topersons identifiedwithin the 2nddegreeof consanguinity. The court recognizes thatnot everyone is

knownatthetimeofthepetition.JudgeDohertystatedtheweakness inthestatute isnotnecessarilytheupfront

filingandnoticecomponents,althoughtheycouldbebolsteredsome,butthereisnolanguageofnoticewithrespect

toinventories.

The

statute

includes

heavy

upfront

notice

requirements

for

the

petition,

and

there

is

anotice

requirement foraccountingbutnothing for the inventory. This couldbe improvedand JudgeDoherty suggested

refiningthemethodofidentifyinginterestedpersons.Theremightbeinterestedpersonswhoarenotwithinthe2nd

degreeof consanguinity. JudgeDoherty suggested formally acknowledgingor contemplating aprotocolbywhich

someone identifies themasapersonof interest requestingongoingnoticeand somehow reviewing that request.

JudgeDohertyexplainedthecourtverifiesnoticeoftheWard inthesamemannerasnoticeoneveryotherentity.

ThecourtrequiresnoticebepersonallydeliveredtotheWard.Theolderpracticewasthatnoticewassent tothe

administratoroftheskilled facilityorgrouphome.This isstillrequiredbutthat isnotnoticeontheWardandthe

districthas

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





16/41

see ifwecouldcreatearegistrysomewherethatwouldallowsomeonetochecktosee iftheir lovedone isonthe

registry.

TheCommissiondiscussedhaving to relyon the clients toprovidenames,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 thatdiffers from thenotice given in thepetition, theywillbring it to the

attentionofthecourtandotherparties.AccesstoaccurateinformationislimitedtotheWardsabilitytoprovidethe

information.

Mr.RoweagreeswithJudgeDohertyabouttheinventoryandotherancillarymatters.Hehasalwaysthoughtitwas

oddthatthestatute(NRS159.034)listthe2nddegreeofconsanguinitybutthestatutedoesnotcallfornoticetothe

Wardinthatstatute.Thestatutetalksaboutprovidingnoticetoanypersonorcareproviderwhoistakingcareofthe

WardbutthestatutedoesnotspecificallyidentifytheWard.Mr.Rowenotedthisismoreofalocalruleissuewhere

theproposedWardwouldbeapartyandyouneed toprovidenotice to theparty.Mr.Rowewasnot sure if the

statutewasamendedthislastlegislativesessiontoincludethislanguagebutthecurrentstatutedoesnotspecifically

requirenotice to theproposedWard.Mr.Rowe thought the statute shouldbeclarifiedand itcould cleanup the

languagepostguardianship.

Judge Steel noted courthearings are not requiredwith someof thedocuments, e.g., the inventoryor reportof

person. Judge Steel said theCommissionwouldneed to reviewwhether the courtwouldbe required tomonitor

whether someone has received noticewhen there could be years between granting the guardianship, filing the

inventory(iftheinventoryisforsummaryadjudicationnoaccountingwouldbefiledandtherewouldbenonoticeof

accounting).TheCommissionwouldneedtoreviewifthecourtwouldberequiredtofileeverysingleyearthenotice

ofpersonanddoacertificateofmailing.JudgeSteelhascasesthatareestateonlysothere isnoreportofperson.

TheITDepartmentmightbeabletoassistthecourttomakesurethatthefollowupdocumentisfiled.

Mr.RowesaidNRS159.047doestalkabouttheissuanceofthecitationthathastobeservedonaproposedWard

who is14yearsorolder.ThereferencetoNRS159.034comesback fromtheestateside,whichyouhaveprovide

notice.TheWard is referenced in the contextofwho gets a copyof a citation, indicating there is going tobe a

hearing.Thequestion theBenchBarCommittee inWashoeCountyhasbeendebating isdoyou actuallyhave to

serveacopyofthepetitionalongwiththecitation.JudgeDohertynotedtheBenchBarCommitteealsonoticedthe

ordersdonotnecessarily contain the listof individualswho areentitled tonotice.There is a guardianshiporder

wherethestatutecontemplatesallthoseindividualsbeingintheoriginalguardianshiporderarelistedsotheperson

under guardianship isawareof that aswell.Theyhavejust started todo this inWashoeCounty.TheTaskForce

recognizedtherearequiteafewdeficitsandinconsistenciesthatshouldbeaddressed.

Mr.Ramanwasconcernedthatthe investigationwouldstopwithaskingtheWardwhotheir family is.Mr.Raman

suggested having a private investigator or Elder Protective Services (EPS) identify if there are additional family

members.Mr.SpoonagreedwithMr.Ramanandnotedherofficetriestoreachouttoasmanypeopleaspossiblein

their investigationto identify familymembers.This isapartoftheirstandardpractice.Ms.Spoonnotedthereare

h h d d d l f l b d f d b h h bl h

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada s Courts




17/41

JusticeHardestyaskedtheBenchBarCommitteesinthenorthandsouthtoreviewthistopic(question11)

furtherandproviderecommendationstotheCommissionregardingnotice.TheCommissionwouldreview

thepossibilityofamoreexpansiverecommendationastohowspecificallythenoticerequirementinNRS

Chapter159couldbeimplemented,andwhatitshouldbeextendedto.

Question12:DoestheCommissionfavortheideaoflimitedguardianshipsincircumstancesinwhichthecapacity

oftheindividualmaynotplacetheminapositionwhereafullguardianshipiswarranted?

Question12isconceptual.MaterialshadbeenreceivedfromMr.HankCavalleraexpressingareservationaboutthe

useoflimitedguardianships.Question12waswrittenwiththeapproachinitiatedinTexasinmind.JusticeHardesty

suggestedtheCommissionreviewquestion13priortoquestion12.

Question13:Does theCommission favorsocalledpersoncenteredplanninganddeterminationsby theCourt

thatguardianshipsareapprovedonlyforleastrestrictivealternatives?

Discussion

Ms.Goodmannotedseniorsmighthaveaproblem inaspecificareaoftheir life,e.g.,payingbills,butare

able

to

function

in

all

other

areas

and

life

on

their

own.

Ms.

Goodman

thought

a

limited

guardianship

would

beidealandcouldallowapersontostayintheirhome.

Ms.BuchanannotedtheClarkCountyPublicGuardiansofficealreadydoesthis.Ms.Buchananprovidedan

exampleofwhena limitedguardianshipwouldworkwell.Example,amentalhealthclientwho ison their

medicationand theysuddenlygooff theirmedication.Theorderstates thatwhiletheperson is inagood

cognitivestate,wheretheycanhandletheiraffairs,theofficedoesnothaveaguardianship.Theminutethe

persongoesofftheirmedicationstheofficewouldstepinforthatlimitedpurposeofgettingthepersonback

ontheirmedicationorwhatevermedicalresourcestheyneedandthentheguardianshipwouldgoaway.

Ms.

Arnold

suggested

questions

9,

12,

and

13

were

intertwined.

Each

question

approaches

the

problem

of

losingcapacityatdifferentratesanddifferentareas.Ms.Arnoldthoughtlimitedguardianshipswereagood

idea.

Ms. Hoy said the personcentered planning approach begins at the initial hearing with the Ward

participating intheprocess.Thisshouldnotendthere. Itshouldgoontowherethatpersonwantsto live,

whatistheleastrestrictivesetting,whatistheirabilitytohaveaccesstotheirownmonies,etc.TheNational

Organizationswantguardianstotakethepersoncenteredplanningapproach.Howmuchofthedaytoday

tasks anddecisionmaking can that clientorWardparticipate? If they aremaking decisions that arenot

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 themwith a sense of dignity. The Commission should

considerthisimportantarea.

Mr.Suttonsuggestedthisbeincludedinthecertificatethatwouldsupportapetitionandshouldincludean

analysis of the least restrictive means. The Commission discussedmodification to that form at its last

meetingandMr.Suttonthinkstheformshouldberequiredtoaddressthis.Thestatutemightalreadyrequire

Commission to Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada s Courts




18/41

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.

JudgeDohertyrespondedtheircourtaddressesthis issuemoresignificantlythantheyhavedone inthepast.Judge

Dohertyhasnot encountered the sameexperiences asMr.Cavallera andMs. Spoon. Since JudgeDohertybegan

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

inplace through theSocialSecurityAdministration tohandleandmonitor thatpersons funds.A similarprogram

exists forveterans through theVeteransAdministration.Asa standardprotocol, thecourthasbegunnot issuing

guardianshipsoftheestateandpersonwherethereisaninsignificantestate.Thecourthasbegunusingthespecial

guardianship for limited purpose for those individualswho have limited areaswhere they truly have challenges

addressing theirneeds.Anattorneyadvocate isapartof thisprocess.Thecourtsdatashows that those typesof

guardianshipsare increasing.Additionally,thecourt istalkingaboutwhatthealternativesare.Theproposedpro

per guardianshippetitionhas affirmative statementsbeingmade as towhat the alternatives are andwhy those

alternativesdidnotwork.Thecourt is trying topoise itself for theanticipated requirement thatcourtswouldbe

expectedtoaddressthosefindingsbystatute.Ifthatdoesnothappenthecourtstillthinksitisgoodpublicpolicyto

address those issues and the statute contemplates this should be done now. Woven into our statute is the

expectationof leastrestrictivealternativesandwoven intoourstatute is thepersoncenteredplanningconcept.

TheCommissionshouldcrystalizethiswithmorespecificity if it isgoing 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 thatnoother least restrictivemeansareavailable toaddress theneedsof theproposed

wards?

JudgeDohertysaidthis isastateofartandthecourtshouldbemakingthosefindings.JudgeDohertywouldargue

thatNevadastatutehassomelevelofexpectationofspecificfindingsandtheCommissionshouldmakethisclearer.

h f h h h d h f h l d f f l l

C S y G p C




19/41

JudgeWalkermovedthattheCommissionacknowledgethepurposesandtenetsbehindquestions13and

15becausetheyareinterrelated.JusticeHardestyconfirmedJudgeWalkermovedtoapprovequestions13

and15.JudgeWalkerrespondedyes.Ms.TerryRussellsecondedthemotion.

Additionaldiscussion

JudgeSteelwantstobesuretheCommissionunderstandswhattheparametersare,whatleastrestrictivemeansis,

andwhatitisnot.Someofthepeopleutilizingthecourtsserviceswillbeproperasguardiansandmightnotbeable

tocommunicatethedifferencebetweensomethingthat is leastrestrictiveornot. Iftheydonotprovidethecourt

withthisinformationthenthecourthasnotmadeagooddecision.Aretheynowgoingtobereliablefornotgiving

thecourtalltheinformationbecausetheyhadnoidea?JusticeHardestysaidtheapproachinTexaswastoforcethe

judgetoaskthequestion,topresseventheproperlitigantsandthelitigantswithlawyers.Haveyouexploredother

alternatives?What investigationdidyoumake to theavailabilityofotheralternatives?Press this issuebefore the

courtmakesthosefindings.JudgeWalkeraddedthecourthastomaketheseveryfindings infostercarecasesand

thecourtshouldmakethesefindingsinguardianshipcases.

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

Wrapup

CommissionmemberswereaskedtoreviewGeneralPolicyQuestions1623priortothenextmeeting.Commission

membersshouldbepreparedtodiscussandvoteonthosequestionsatthenextmeeting.Theobjectiveistoreview

all29questionsbytheApril1meetingsotheCommissioncouldbegintogetintothespecifics.TheFebruarymeeting

agendawouldincludeadiscussionaboutthefilingfees,anupdateontheprivateprofessionallicensingprocess,and

adiscussiononthe issues identifiedbytheSecretaryofStatesofficeonSB262.Asummaryofthemeeting,which

willincludethequestionsposedbyMr.Landerfelt,willbesenttoCommissionmembers.

V.

FutureMeetingDates

ThenextmeetingwillbeheldonFebruary26,2016.

VI. Adjournment

Themeetingwasadjournedat4:20p.m.

y




20/41

GENERAL

POLICY

QUESTIONS



F b 26 2016 A d d M ti M t i l


21/41

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 aGuardianAd Litem program similar toVirginia or under some

othermodel? HowandunderwhatcircumstancesshouldaGALbeappointed?

5.

Does

the

Commission

recommend

the

use,

where

available

of

volunteers

or

programs

similar

to

SAFEtoassistproposedwardsandtheCourtinaguardianshipproceeding?

6. Does the Commission favor the idea of changing definitions or terminology? Should the

CommissionrecommendchangestothePhysicianCertificateandifsohow?

7. Does theCommissionwish tomake recommendations concerning theconfidentialityofallor

someoftheproceedingsinguardianshipcases?

8. Does theCommission recommend changes to theprocess for theappointmentof temporary

guardianships?If

so,

how

should

that

process

be

modified?

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 inwhich the

capacityof

the

individual

may

not

place

them

in

aposition

where

afull

guardianship

is

warranted?

13.Does the Commission favor so called personcenteredplanning and determinations by the

Courtthatguardianshipsareapprovedonlyforleastrestrictivealternatives?

14.Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the use, timing, scope,

processandparticipantsinmediationinguardianshipproceedings?

15.ShouldtheCourtberequiredtomakespecificfindings inanyorderappointingaguardianthat

includesaconclusion

that

no

other

least

restrictive

means

are

available

to

address

the

needs

of

theproposedward?

16.DoestheCommissionrecommendrulestoevaluateCourtsupervisionofguardianshipsincluding

training,staffing,schedulingandcaseloadlimits?

17.Does the Commission favor the use of Elder Protective Services (EPS) or some other entity



February 26 2016 Agenda and Meeting Materials


22/41

20.Does theCommissionwishtomake recommendationsconcerningtheuse,timing, training,or

caseloadsofthePublicGuardians?

21.

Doesthe

Commission

wish

to

make

recommendations

concerning

the

use

and

appointment

of

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 theCommissionwish tomake recommendations concerning theprocessand timing for

filingand

evaluating

an

inventory

for

the

ward?

25.Does theCommissionwish tomake recommendations concerning theprocess, 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

tosell

estate

assets?

28. Does theCommissionwish tomake recommendations concerning thedataused tomanage

guardianshipcases?

29.Does the Commission wish to make recommendations concerning the use of forms in

guardianshipproceedings?



February 26 2016 Agenda and Meeting Materials


23/41

DATA/IT

WORKGROUP

REPORT





24/41





JOHN MCCORMICK VERISEV.CAMPBELL

Assistant Court Administrator Deputy Director

Judicial Programs and Services 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 DataInformation 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, andadjudicated. 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 individuallyand 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 rulebe 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 theCommission, 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. TheGDT presented that filing fees are being assessed inconsistently in the State In addition the GDT





25/41

The GDT has discussed the implementation of CPM in all District Courts. Since the GDT workgroupwas created, the Judicial Council of the State of the Nevada, Court Administration Committee createdthe 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 modeland 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 GuardianshipInformation 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 theCommission 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 beingutilized 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 themanagement of guardianship matters in Nevada.

y g g




26/41

GUARDIANSHIPFILINGFEES




27/41

1

GUARDIANSHIPFEESSTATE PURPOSE FEE CITATION/NOTESArizona PetitionforTemporaryAppointofGuardian/Conservator $213

Petitionto

Appoint

Guardian

/Conservator

$213

PetitiontoAppointSuccessor $213

PetitiontoTerminateGuardianIffiledbyappointedguardian NoFee

SeverancePetition/TerminateParentalRights NoFee

ClerksFee/CourtControlledFunds $27.00 (Note:Created10/23/98;

DoNotUse912forthis

event.ChangeperQTR,

perCaseforaction

performed)

California Petitionforappointmentofconservator,guardianoftheestateorguardianof

thepersonandestateoroppositiontothesepetitionsotherthancompeting

petitionforappointment

$435 GC70653(a),(b)

70602.5,70602.6

CaliforniaGovernment

Code

Oppositiontopetitionforappointmentofconservator,guardianoftheestateor

guardianof

the

person

and

estate

filed

by

or

on

behalf

of

conservatee

or

proposedwardoraparentoftheproposedward

NoFee GC70653(f)

Petitionforappointmentofguardianofthepersononlyoroppositiontopetition

otherthancompetingpetitionforappointment

$225 GC70654(a),(b),70602.5

Oppositiontopetitionbytheproposedwardortheparentoftheproposedward NoFee GC70654(e)

Petitionoroppositionfiledafterissuanceoflettersofguardianshipor

temporaryguardianship,inguardianshipofthepersononly

NoFee GC70657(e)

Firstof

subsequent

petition

for

temporary

letters

of

conservatorship

or

guardianship$60

GC

70657(a)(4)

Colorado PetitionforAppointmentofGuardianforAdult $164

PetitionRequestingColoradoacceptguardianshipfromsendingstate $164

Registrationandrecognitionofguardianshipordersfromotherstatesandsworn

statement

$164

26 of 40




28/41

2

Delaware Petitionorapplicationtoappointguardianforminor(inclusiveofallinitialfiling

fees)

$125

Petitionorapplicationtoappointguardianforadisabledperson(inclusiveofall

filingfees)

$125

Petitionor

application

in

connection

with

tort

settlement

(inclusive

of

all

initial

filingfees)$125

Foraruletoshowcauseinapendingaction $50

Petitionorapplicationtoremoveaguardian $50

Petitionorapplicationtoappointasuccessorguardian $50

Petitionorappointmenttoexpend $35

Petitionorapplicationtoinitiateorincreasemonthlyallotment $35

Petitionor

application

to

reinvest

$35

Petitionorapplicationtosellrealestate $50

Petitionorapplicationtoacceptforeignguardianship $50

Petitionorapplicationtotransferguardianship $50

Promissorynoteforguardianborrowingfromaccount $25

Transferoffunds $15

Thirdpartycertificationofcompliancewithorder $3

Filingan

exception

to

guardianship

accounting

$100

Florida Formaladministration,guardianship,ancillary,curatorship,orconservatorship $400

Guardianshipofpersononly $235

VeteransAdministrationguardianship $235

Petitionfordeterminationofincapacity $231

Openinganyestateofonedocumentormore,includingbutnotlimitedto:

Petitionsandorderstoapprovesettlementofminorsclaims;opensafedeposit

box;to

enter

rooms

and

places;

determine

heirs

(if

not

formal

administration);

foreignguardiantomanagepropertyofnonresident.Notforissuanceofletters

orordersofsummaryadministration

$231

Caveat $41

Exemplifiedcertificates $7

Guardianshipauditfee,initialinventory,above$25,000 $85

Guardianshipauditfee,annualfinancialreturn:

27 of 40




29/41

3

Forestatesvaluedat$25,000orless

Forestatesvaluedat$25,000to$100,000

Forestatesvaluedat$100,000to$500,000

Forestatesvaluedatmorethan$500,000

$20

$85

$170

$250

Hawaii

GuardianshipInitial

Filing

Fee

($100)

Surcharge($65)

ComputerSystemSurcharge($50)

$215

Motionsno

fee

Idaho Petitionforappointmentofguardianorreceiptandacceptanceofforeign

guardianship

$118

Consenttotestamentaryappointmentasguardianwithoutpetition $118

StatusReports $25

Iowa

Kane

County16th

Circuit

Guardian

Disabled

person

$167

GuardianEstateofdisabledperson $167

GuardianPersonandestateofdisabledperson $167

GuardianMinorDCFScase $167

GuardianMinorperson $167

Guardian

Person

and

estate

of

minor

person

$167

GuardianSmallEstateRealestateandpersonnotexceeding$15,000 $132

GuardianWhenlettersissuedinestatetoguardianofperson,butnotestate $112

GuardianCollectionofjudgmentorsettlementofclaimforwrongfuldeath

withnootheradministrationanddoesnotexceed$5,000

$112

GuardianCollectionofjudgmentorsettlementofclaimforwrongfuldeath

withnootheradministration

$142

Mass.

Appointmentof

aGuardian

Petition

No

Fee

Note:

There

is

no

separatefeefortheinitial

appointmentbondofa

fiduciaryortheinitial

Lettersofappointment.

Expand,modify,limitpowersofaguardian,petition NoFee

ResignationofConservatororGuardian,petition NoFee

TerminationofConservatororGuardian,petition NoFee

28 of 40




30/41

4

Michigan RequestforNoticeofGuardianshipOrdersNoproceedingpending $150 MCL700.5104,MCL

600.880a(1)

RequestforNoticeofGuardianshipOrdersProceedingpending $201 MCL600.880b(1)

Petitionfor

Full

or

Limited

Guardianship,

including

request

for

Temporary

Guardianshiponsamepetition.$150

MCL

600.880a(1),

MCR

2.119(G)(2)

Annualreportonconditionofward NoFee

Account2

ForeachaccountfilediforderedbythecourtpursuanttoMCR5.409(C)(1)MCL

600.880b(1)

$203

PetitionbyCourtAppointedAttorneyinresponsetoguardianshipreview NoFee

Anyother

paper,

no

matter

how

titled,

which

requests

relief

or

requires

a

hearingorrulingofthecourtwhenproceedingpending.

Filedbytheward

NoFee

MCL

600.880b(2)

Anyotherpaper,nomatterhowtitled,whichrequestsrelieforrequiresa

hearingorrulingofthecourtwhenproceedingpending.

Filedbyanyoneelse

$204 MCL600.880b(1)

Minnesota Estates,trusts,guardianships,conservatorshipsFirstpaperfiled $324 Thisfeeincludesabase

fee

of

$310

+

Technology

fee$2+LawLibraryFee

$12Minn.State.

357.021,subd.2(1),

subd.2b,134A.09,

134A.10

1The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.

2Thisreferstoanaccountofanytype,including,butnotnecessarilylimitedto,anannualaccount,anamendedaccount,afinalaccount,aninterimaccount,asupplementalaccount,and

anaccountwithzeroreceiptsanddisbursements.Thefilingfeeistobeappliedtoeachaccountfiled,regardlessofthenumberofseparateaccounts.TheaccountisnotsubjecttoMCR

2.119(G)(2)becauseitisnotamotion.3The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.

4The$20feeincludes$10fortheStateCourtFundand$10fortheCountyGeneralFund.

29 of 40




31/41

5

Nebraska GuardianshipFilingFee $20 NRS33126.02

DocketFee/JudgesRetirementFee $2 NRS33126.02

Judgesretirementfee $2 NRS24703

Legalservicesfee(onepercase) $5.25 NRS33107.01

Automationfee

(one

per

case)

$8

NRS

33

107.03

NSCEducationfee $1 NRS33154

Disputeresolutionfee(onepercase) $.75 NRS33155

IndigentDefensefee(onepercase) $3 NRS33156

UniformDataAnalysisfee(onepercase) $1 NRS47633

Total(perpetitionregardlessofthenumberofwards) $43

New

Hampshire5

Petitionforguardianshipofincapacitatedperson $240

Petitionforguardianshipofminorperson $130 Pluscertifiedmailcostsof

$6.92foreachpersonto

receivetheorderof

notice.

Petitionforguardianshipofminor(estateonlyorpersonandestate) $200 Pluscertifiedmailcostsof

$6.92foreachpersonto

receive

the

order

of

notice.

Petitionforguardianofincompetentveteran $200

Motionforsuccessorguardianofperson(only)appliestobothguardianof

incapacitatedpersonandguardianofminor

$50

Motionforsuccessorguardianofestateorofpersonandestateappliesto

bothGuardianofincapacitatedpersonandguardianofminor

$85

NewMexico

13thJD

ProbateCaseFilingFee(includeswills,estatesmiscellaneous,guardianship,

conservatorship,adoption,andtrust)

$117

ClerksOfficeChargesaFeeforFormPacketsGuardianship/Conservatorshipof

AdultandKinship/GuardianshipofMinor

$5

5

EFiled

Cases

only.

Fees

include

$25

surcharge

per

Probate

Division

Rule

169,

I(q)

and

Family

Division

Rule

1.3,

L(1).

Fees

also

include

$20

eFiling

fee

if

applicable.

30 of 40




32/41

6

Oklahoma Guardianship $134 28O.S.152A.3

$1 19O.S.220

Applicationforrelativeguardianship $50 10O.S.21.5F.3

GuardianshipAnnual

Report

$33

28

O.S.

152A.4

$1 19O.S.220

Proceedingforsaleorleaseofrealorpersonalpropertyormineralinterestin

probateorguardianship

$43 28O.S.152A.5

$1 19O.S.220

Oregon Petitionforappointmentofguardianorforfilinganappearanceina

guardianshipproceeding

$111 ORS21.145(3);ORS

21.175(1)

Filingananswer,motion,orobjectionbyrespondent,protectedperson,the

Officeof

the

Long

Term

Care

Ombudsman

or

the

system

described

in

ORS

192.517

NoFee ORS125.075(4)

Requestfornotice $252 ORS21.135(1),(2)(g);ORS

125.060(4)

Certifiedcopyofletterstestamentary,administration,conservatorship,and

guardianship

$5+25cents

perpage

ORS21.258;CJO14

066(8)

Registeringforeignguardianshiporder $111 ORS21.145;ORS125.842

Appearanceinmatterofforeignguardianship $111 ORS21.145;ORS125.842

Rhode

Island

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

or

ward

over

which

the

court

has

jurisdiction,

but

in

no

event

shall

the

fee

be

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

332221

Uponpaymentofanyfee

enumeratedinthis

section,theclerkofthe

court

shall

issue

a

written

receipttotheperson

makingpayment.Inthe

eventthatthematter

filedwiththecourtcalls

forahearing,theclerkof

thecourtshallnotethe

hearingdateandtimeon

31 of 40




33/41

7

hereinafterprovided,andshallbepaidbeforethepetitionisfiled,andshallbe

based upon estimates submitted by the petitioner or someone on his or her

behalf,andshallbesubjecttorevisionwhenever itappearsthattheestimates

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,orconservator,or for theprobateofthe will.The courtatany time

may cite in and examine any custodian, executor, administrator, guardian, or

conservatorforthepurposeofdeterminingthefullfeedueandpayable.

thereceiptwhenever

possible;otherwise,as

soonasispracticable

afterthefilingofthe

matter,the

clerk

of

the

courtshallprovide

writtennoticeofthe

hearingdateandtime

directlytotheperson

filingthematter.

The

clerk

of

the

court

shallchargeonedollar

andfiftycents($1.50)per

pageandthreedollars

($3.00)tocertifyany

probatedocumentson

filewiththeprobate

court.

Also,thefollowingfeesshallbecharged:

Foreverypetitiontofileaclaimoutoftime $30

Foreverypetitionfortheremovalofanexecutor,administrator,guardian,

conservator,orotherfiduciary

$30

Foreverypetitionforappointmentofasuccessorguardianundertheuniform

giftstominorsact

$30

Forevery

affidavit

of

complete

administration

$30

Foreverycertificateofappointment $5

Foreverypetitionfortaxminimizationorestateplanning $30

Foreverypetitionforchangeofname $30

Foreverypetitionforadoption $30

32 of 40




34/41

8

South

Dakota

Guardianship(includesallsubsequentpapers) $25 SDCL16229

Virginia GuardianorConservatorshipAppointment(petition)notincludingQual.Fee $20

Guardianofminorbycourt $84

Guardianof

minor

by

clerk

No

Fee

Standbyguardian/conservatorpetition $15

Standbyguardian/conservatorreinstateondocket $10

Washington Guardianshipfilingestatewithassetsmorethan$3,000 $240 36.18.020(2)(f)$200

36.18.020(5)(b)$40

judicialsurcharge

GuardianshiporLimitedGuardianshipforestateslessthan$3,000

NoprepaymentwhenfiledbyAG,butmaybeorderedpaidbyestate

NoFee 11.88.030(3)

11.88.030(2)(b)

Letterofadministration,guardianship,testamentary $5

GuardianshiptoEstateCauseCodemigration/noadditionalfeeischargedto

transfertheguardianshipfiletoaprobateproceedingwhenmigrationis

ordered.

NoFee 11.88.150(2)

Petitionforinitialdetentionbyfamily,guardian,orconservatorJoelsLaw

case)

Nochargeor

filing

fee

SSB5269became

effective

7/24/15

Juveniledependency,guardianship Nofee 13.34.040

36.18.020(2)(a)

West

Virginia

Guardianship/Conservatorship

TotalFeeAssessmentAuthorityRemittance

$175 $9044A21(c),591

31$75County, 44A2

1(c)$15EGCF6

Wisconsin Neworpendingguardianship $60 54.56,814.66(1)(m)

shouldbe

filed

with

registerinprobate

Wyoming GuardianshiporConservatorship $70

EstateandProbate $70

6

Enforcement

of

Guardianship

and

Conservatorship

33 of 40




35/41

Guardianshipfilingfees1inotherstates.

Fivestateschargebetween$20 $70

Eightstateschargebetween$111 $175

Sixstateschargebetween$213and$240

Onestate

(Minnesota)

charges

$324

1The filing fees are for person only. California and Florida charge more for person and estate.

AZ CA CO DE FL HI IA MI MN NE NM NH OK OR SD VA WA WV WI WY

Series1 $213 $225 $164 $125 $235 $215 $167 $150 $324 $43 $117 $240 $135 $111 $25 $20 $240 $175 $60 $70

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Filing

Fees

Guardianship

Filing

Fees

in

Other

States

34 of 40




36/41

FilingfeesinNevadaareaslowas$0(estate$0$2500)andashighas$544(DouglasCounty)followedby$539(ClarkCounty)and

$532.50

(Carson

City),

if

the

value

of

the

estate

is

over

$200,000.

35 of 40




37/41

ESTATEVALUE$2,500$20,000 19.013 19.020 19.030 19.0311 19.3135 19.0303/AB652 19.03123 Ordinance Total

Douglas

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$10

DCC

2.50.060

$20

$5

includes

DCC

3.42.020

DCC

3.36.010

$10

DCC2.50.060$20$195.50

Carson

City

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $20 $10 CMC2.35.010;CMC

2.36.010;CMC

2.37.010

$180.50

White

Pine

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $20 $10 $170.50

Esmeralda $170.50

Churchill $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $20CC4.90.060 $160.50

Lyon $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $20Ord.536 LYOrd.548$10 $160.50

Nye $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $20Ord.389 Ord.256 $160.50

Storey $160.50

Lincoln $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $20Ord.20094County $150.50

Pershing $149.00

Humboldt

$145.50

Eureka $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $130.50

Mineral $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $130.50

Lander $130.50

Clark NOFEE

Washoe NOFEE

Elko NOFEE

1Additionalfeesincivilactions.Programsforlegalaid.

2AB652009LegislativeSession NRS 19.0303 Additional fees incivilactions:Programs forcourt security. 1. Inanycounty, theboardof countycommissionersmay, in

additiontoanyotherfeerequiredbylaw,imposebyordinanceafilingfeeofnotmorethan$20tobepaidonthecommencementofanycivilactionorproceedinginthedistrict

courtforwhichafilingfee isrequiredandonthefilingofanyanswerorappearance inanysuchactionorproceedingforwhichafilingfee isrequired,exceptasotherwise

requiredpursuanttoNRS19.034.3Additionalfeesincivilactions;Probonoprogramsandprogramsforabusedorneglectedchildrenandvictimsofdomesticviolence.

36 of 40




38/41

ESTATEVALUE$20,001$199,999 19.013 19.020 19.030 19.031 19.0313

5

4

19.0302/

AB

65

5

19.0303

/AB

65

19.0312 19.03136

19.03157

Ordinance Total

Douglas $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $99 $20DCC

2.50.06

0

$5includes

DCC

3.42.020

$10 DCC

3.36.010

$10

DCC

3.48.020

$20

$294.50

Clark $72 $3.00 $32 $25 $99 $20

includes

CCC

2.32.08

0

$10includes

CCC

2.32.040(a)

$10 $15

includes

CCC

2.32.010

$286.00

Carson

City

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $99 CMC

2.35.010;

NRS

.0313(3);

CMC2.36.010:

19.03135;

CMC

2.37.010;

NRS

19.315;

Totals$50

$279.50

4Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsforpreventionandtreatmentofabuseofalcoholanddrugs.

5AB652009LegislativeSessionOnthefilingofapetitionforletterstestamentary,lettersofadministrationoraguardianship,whichfeedoesnotincludethecourt

feeprescribedbyNRS 19.020,tobepaidbythepetitioner:

(1) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$200,000ormore....................$352

(2) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateismorethan$20,000butlessthan$200,000 $99

(3) Wherethestatedvalueoftheestateis$20,000orless,nofeemaybechargedorcollected.6Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsofmediationincasesinvolvingcustodyorvisitationofchild;neighborhoodjusticecenters.

7Additionalfeesincivilactions;Programsforalternativedisputeresolution.

37 of 40




39/41

Washoe $274.50

White

Pine

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $99 $20 ProBono

$10

$269.50

Elko

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

$20

includes

ECC04

2009

$20

$269.50

Esmeralda $269.50

Lyon $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $99 $20

Ord.

536

LYOrd

548$10

$259.50

Nye

$72

$1.50

$32

$25

$99

Ord.256

$259.50

Churchill $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $99 $20CC

4.090.0

60

$259.50

Storey $259.50

Lincoln $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $99 $20

Ord.

200904

County

$249.50

Pershing $249.00

Humboldt $244.50

Lander $244.50

Eureka $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $99 $229.50

Mineral $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $99 $229.50

38 of 40




40/41

ESTATEVALUE$200,000+19.013 19.020 19.030 19.031 19.0313

5

19.0302/

AB

65

8

19.0303/

AB

65

19.0312 19.0313 19.0315

/AB

535

Ordinance Total

Douglas $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $349 $20DCC

2.50.060

$5includes

DCC

3.42.020

$10 DCC

3.36.010

$10

DCC

3.48.020

$20

$544.50

Clark $72 $3.00 $32 $25 $352 $20

includes

CCC

2.32.080

$10

includes

CCC

2.32.040(a)

$10 $15

includes

CCC

2.32.010

$539.00

Carson

City

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352 CMC

2.35.010;

NRS

.0313(3);

CMC

2.36.010:

19.03135;

CMC

2.37.010;

NRS

$50total

$532.50

Washoe $527.50

White

Pine

$72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $352 ProBono

$10

$522.50

8AB652009LegislativeSessionOnthefilingofapetitionforletterstestamentary,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




41/41

Elko $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352/$10 $20

includes

ECC04

2009

$20 $522.50

Esmeralda $522.00

Churchill $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $10 $352 $20CC

4.090.060

$512.50

Lyon $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352 $20LY

Ord.536

LYOrd

548$10

$512.50

Nye $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352/$10 Ord.

256/$20

$512.50

Storey $512.50

Lincoln $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352 $20Ord.

200904

County

$502.50

Pershing $502.50

Humboldt $497.50

Lander $497.50

Eureka $72 $1.50 $32 $25 $352 $482.50

Mineral $72 $1.50 $32 $

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lea
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

2 26 16 NV Guardianship Agenda and Meeting Materials

Documents