In re Guardianship of Mary Louise Eaton, 163 N.H. 386

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that RSA 464-A:43 does not require a proposed ward's estate to pay the attorney's fees incurred by a guardianship petitioner, even when the petitioner acted in good faith. The court interpreted the phrase "fees for the counsel" as referring to counsel for the proposed ward, not the petitioner's counsel, and affirmed the denial of the petitioner's fee request.

Holdings

1. RSA 464-A:43, I, requires payment of court costs and fees for counsel representing the proposed ward, not attorney's fees incurred by the petitioner. A proposed ward is therefore not responsible for a petitioner's attorney's fees regardless of whether the petitioner acted in good faith.
2. RSA 464-A:26, I, which directs a guardian of the estate to apply money and property for the ward's support, care, and education, does not encompass attorney's fees incurred by an unsuccessful guardianship petitioner.
3. The provision requiring a conservatee's estate to pay conservatorship costs does not establish that a proposed ward's estate must pay a guardianship petitioner's attorney's fees.
4. Neither the legislative history of RSA 464-A:43 nor public-policy concerns support awarding a guardianship petitioner's attorney's fees from the ward's estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 464-A:43, I, requires a proposed ward's estate to pay the attorney's fees of a good-faith petitioner in a guardianship proceeding.
2. Whether RSA 464-A:26, I, or the cost-allocation provision for conservatorships in RSA 464-A:43, III, supports payment of a guardianship petitioner's attorney's fees from the ward's estate.
3. Whether legislative history or public policy requires payment of the petitioner's attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed