NRS
159.0455 Appointment and duties of guardians ad litem.
1. On or after the date of the filing of a
petition to appoint a guardian:
(a) The court may, in any proceeding, appoint a
person to represent the protected person or proposed protected person as a
guardian ad litem if the court believes that the protected person or proposed
protected person will benefit from the appointment and the services of the
guardian ad litem will be beneficial in determining the best interests of the
protected person or proposed protected person; and
(b) The guardian ad litem must represent the
protected person or proposed protected person as a guardian ad litem until
relieved of that duty by court order.
2. Upon the appointment of the guardian ad
litem, the court shall set forth in the order of appointment the duties of the
guardian ad litem.
3. If a court-approved volunteer advocate
program for guardians ad litem has been established in a judicial district, a
court may appoint a person who is not an attorney to represent a protected
person or proposed protected person as a guardian ad litem. If such a program
has been established, all volunteers participating in the program must complete
appropriate training, as determined by relevant national or state sources or as
approved by the Supreme Court or the district court in the judicial district,
before being appointed to represent a protected person or proposed protected
person.
4. A guardian ad litem appointed pursuant
to this section is an officer of the court and is not a party to the case. A
guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to this section shall not offer legal
advice to the protected person or proposed protected person but shall:
(a) Advocate for the best interests of the
protected person or proposed protected person in a manner that will enable the
court to determine the action that will be the least restrictive and in the
best interests of the protected person or proposed protected person; and
(b) Provide any information required by the
court.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
1758; A 2017,
2553)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case:
Haley v. DIST. CT., 273 P.3d 855 (Nev. 2012).
Haley v. DIST. CT., 273 P.3d 855 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 159.0455(1) ("The guardian ad litem is entitled to reasonable compensation from the estate of the ward or proposed ward.”
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
· cites it 13× “At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
In re Guardianship of Jones, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57 (Nev. 2024).
· cites it 11× “The district court erred in concluding that it must appoint an attor- ney to serve as a GA L, but the error was harmless In addressing June's objections to Brickfield's motion for fees, the district court concluded that it could appoint a nonattorney as GAL only if a…”
Ahern v. Waid (In re W.N. Connell & Marjorie T. Connell Living Trust), 430 P.3d 529 (Nev. 2018).
“Yu , 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 90, 405 P.3d 639 , 640 (2017), the record clearly shows that the district court did not exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or act in excess of its jurisdiction when it appointed a guardian ad litem, such that writ relief would…”
Mayorga v. Ronaldo (D. Nev. 2020).
“138 Although 14 significant, I find that this is not substantial evidence that Mayorga is incompetent under Nevada 15 law. 16 17 18 stated. Id.”
Leach v. Ingram (D. Nev. 2024).
“at §§ 159.0455, 159.0487, 159.0806, 159.095.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(1) — 3 cases
Haley v. DIST. CT., 273 P.3d 855 (Nev. 2012).
“See NRS 159.0455(1) ("The guardian ad litem is entitled to reasonable compensation from the estate of the ward or proposed ward.”
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
“At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(1)(a) — 2 cases
Ahern v. Waid (In re W.N. Connell & Marjorie T. Connell Living Trust), 430 P.3d 529 (Nev. 2018).
“Yu , 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 90, 405 P.3d 639 , 640 (2017), the record clearly shows that the district court did not exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or act in excess of its jurisdiction when it appointed a guardian ad litem, such that writ relief would…”
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
“At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(2) — 1 case
In re Guardianship of Jones, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57 (Nev. 2024).
“The district court erred in concluding that it must appoint an attor- ney to serve as a GA L, but the error was harmless In addressing June's objections to Brickfield's motion for fees, the district court concluded that it could appoint a nonattorney as GAL only if a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(3) — 4 cases
Haley v. DIST. CT., 273 P.3d 855 (Nev. 2012).
“See NRS 159.0455(1) ("The guardian ad litem is entitled to reasonable compensation from the estate of the ward or proposed ward.”
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
“At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
In re Guardianship of Jones, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57 (Nev. 2024).
“The district court erred in concluding that it must appoint an attor- ney to serve as a GA L, but the error was harmless In addressing June's objections to Brickfield's motion for fees, the district court concluded that it could appoint a nonattorney as GAL only if a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(4) — 2 cases
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
“At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
In re Guardianship of Jones, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57 (Nev. 2024).
“The district court erred in concluding that it must appoint an attor- ney to serve as a GA L, but the error was harmless In addressing June's objections to Brickfield's motion for fees, the district court concluded that it could appoint a nonattorney as GAL only if a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 159.0455(4)(a) — 2 cases
In re Guardianship of Jones (Nev. 2023).
“At issue in this appeal are three arguments against the fee award: (1) the GAL has no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, as required by the Nevada Statewide Rules for Guardianship (NSRG); (2) the court improperly appointed an…”
In re Guardianship of Jones, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57 (Nev. 2024).
“The district court erred in concluding that it must appoint an attor- ney to serve as a GA L, but the error was harmless In addressing June's objections to Brickfield's motion for fees, the district court concluded that it could appoint a nonattorney as GAL only if a…”
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.