Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

Self-Help Center

You are here

In re Guardianship of Giventer

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Friday, January 25, 2013

A-11-0806 & A-11-0974, In re Guardianship of Giventer


Douglas County, County Court Judge Craig Q. McDermott


Attorney for Appellant:  Edward F. Fogarty, John J. Gross (Fogarty, Lund & Gross)


Attorney for Appellee:  James D. Sherrets, Diana J. Vogt (Sherrets,  Bruno & Vogt, L.L.C)


Attorney for Appellee: William E. Seidler, Jr. (Seidler & Seidler, P.C.)


Attorney for Appellee: Bryan S. Hatch (Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, L.L.P)


Probate Action:  Guardianship and Conservatorship


Action Taken by Trial Court:  The court entered orders approving Giventer’s accounting and awarded the conservator attorney fees and costs and striking Giventer’s response objecting to the accounting and conservator’s fees and costs. The court also entered an order placing limitations on Giventer’s retained attorneys  and extending the Wells Fargo’s term as conservator, and denied Giventer’s motion enabling Giventer to fight attorney fees and costs.


Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Giventer contends that the county court erred in summarily approving the conservator’s application and striking Giventer’s response.  The appellant also contends that the county court erred (1) in limiting Giventer’s attorney rights; (2) in denying Giventer an opportunity to present her case in support of her retainer contract, her legal needs, and her choice of attorneys; (3) in failing to terminate the conservatorship of Wells Fargo; (4) in failing to grant Giventer’s motion to fight attorney fees; and (5) in making various erroneous evidentiary rulings.


A cross-appeal has been filed by Giventer’s daughter contending that the probate court erred (1) in approving the annual conservatorship accounting and attorney fees, (2) in depriving Giventer of her right to her own attorney, (3) by failing to remove Wells Fargo as conservator and trustee, (4) in approving attorney fees and costs without proof that they were necessary or reasonable, and (5) in approving fees to which the ward objected even if the guardian did not object. Another cross-appeal has been filed by Giventer’s son contending that the county court erred in failing to disqualify Giventer’s attorneys from representing her in the guardianship and conservatorship proceeding.

This page was last modified on Wednesday, October 15, 2014