UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: TODD W. SHORT, 

Debtor.

TODD W. SHORT,

Appellant,  No. 03-1418

v.

WILLIAM E. LOOSE; PAYPAL,

INCORPORATED; CHARTER

COMMUNICATIONS; UNITED STATES

BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR,

Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CA-03-48-1, BK-02-11094)

Submitted: July 1, 2003

Decided: August 8, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Todd W. Short, Appellant Pro Se. John Lawrence Bramlett, Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Todd Wilson Short noted this appeal from the district court’s order

dismissing his appeal from several bankruptcy court orders. The district court dismissed the appeal noting that Short had been declared

incompetent by the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division,

Buncombe County, North Carolina, and a guardian had been

appointed to represent his interests. Therefore, the court concluded

that Short lacked the capacity to note the appeals. For the reasons that

follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further

proceedings. 

Short asserted that the general guardian appointed by the North

Carolina court was not acting in his or his bankruptcy estate’s best

interest. When such a conflict exists, the court is required to determine whether appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to protect the interests of the ward, even if the incompetent person already

has a general representative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); T.W. ex rel.

Enk v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893, 896 (7th Cir. 1977); Adelman ex rel.

Adelman v. Graves, 747 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1984); Hoffert v.

General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1981). The determination of the need to appoint a guardian ad litem is reviewed for

abuse of discretion. See Gardner ex rel. Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d

131, 138-39 (3d Cir. 1989); Hoffert, 656 F.2d at 164. 

The district court’s failure to exercise its discretion by considering

whether Short was adequately represented by his general guardian

requires that we remand this case to the district court for the proper

inquiry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and the

court’s inherent powers. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th

Cir. 1993); see also Adelman, 747 F.2d at 988 (remanding case where

district court failed to consider adequacy of guardian’s representation

of ward). 

2 In Re: SHORT
Accordingly, we grant Short’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, vacate the district court’s order dismissing Short’s appeals

from the bankruptcy court, and remand the case to the district court

for an inquiry into the adequacy of the general guardian’s representation of Short’s interests. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

In Re: SHORT 3