History:
L. 1965, ch. 347, § 11; L. 1973, ch. 186, § 30; L. 1976, ch. 242, § 92; L. 1983, ch. 191, § 8; Repealed, L. 2002, ch. 114, § 81; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statutory notice and procedural requirements considered in action for selection of guardian and conservator of minor. In re Stremel, 233 Kan. 136, 140, 141, 660 P.2d 952 (1983).
2. Cited in holding incapacitated parent entitled to service on guardian and conservator (K.S.A. 60-304(c)) in severance proceedings. In re Baby Boy Bryant, 9 Kan. App. 2d 768, 773, 774, 689 P.2d 1203 (1984).
3. Cited; K.S.A. 59-3004 inherently requires that will be probated before it is effective for appointment for guardianship purposes. In re Guardianship of Slemp, 11 Kan. App. 2d 156, 159, 717 P.2d 519 (1986).
4. Cited; circumstances rendering order approving claims voidable due to conservator's substantial conflict of interest (K.S.A. 59-1703), "other interested parties" examined. In re Conservatorship of L.M.S., 12 Kan. App. 2d 725, 726, 755 P.2d 22 (1988).
In Re Stremel, 660 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 3דWhen brought by the natural guardian or next friend the giving of notice is a discretionary matter with the court (K.S.A. 59-3011[B][4]). In the present case the original petition was not filed by the natural guardian of Timothy and no allegation or showing was made that…”
In re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Heck, 913 P.2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “Based upon the procedures required by the Act, did the legislature intend to prohibit an appointed conservator from taking any action on behalf of the conservatee prior to the posting of a bond and receipt of the letters of conservatorship? We think not.”
In Re the Conservatorship of L.M.S., 755 P.2d 22 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Who may contest a voidable order Scott contends Pfalzgraf was never appointed guardian ad litem for the children in the conservatorship proceedings, her appointment as attorney under K.S.A. 59-3011 ended when he was appointed as conservator, and Pfalzgraf therefore had no…”
Mason v. Dome, 660 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 3דWhen brought by the natural guardian or next friend the giving of notice is a discretionary matter, with the court (K.S.A. 59-3011[B][4]). In the present case the original petition was not filed by the natural guardian of Timothy and no allegation or showing was made that…”
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Slemp, 717 P.2d 519 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2דFinally, petitioner contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the best interests of the minor child would be served by placing her with her aunt and uncle, the Sandersons, and not with petitioner. Once the district court properly determined that the…”
— K.S.A. § 59-3011(B)(4) — 2 cases
In Re Stremel, 660 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1983). “When brought by the natural guardian or next friend the giving of notice is a discretionary matter with the court (K.S.A. 59-3011[B][4]). In the present case the original petition was not filed by the natural guardian of Timothy and no allegation or showing was made that…”
Mason v. Dome, 660 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1983). “When brought by the natural guardian or next friend the giving of notice is a discretionary matter, with the court (K.S.A. 59-3011[B][4]). In the present case the original petition was not filed by the natural guardian of Timothy and no allegation or showing was made that…”
— K.S.A. § 59-3011(a)(2) — 1 case
In re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Heck, 913 P.2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “Based upon the procedures required by the Act, did the legislature intend to prohibit an appointed conservator from taking any action on behalf of the conservatee prior to the posting of a bond and receipt of the letters of conservatorship? We think not.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.