Opinion ID: 1852842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In their fourth assignment Sim's attorneys state the lower courts erred in failing to hold that, given a proper interpretation of the guardianship law, the determination that imposed guardianship and conservatorship on Mrs. Sim is contrary to the evidence in the case. This court has long recognized that each case of this type must be determined upon its particular facts. Hyde v. Crocker, 185 Neb. 428, 176 N.W.2d 234 (1970); Cass v. Pense, 155 Neb. 792, 54 N.W.2d 68 (1952). In each case the question is whether the record is such as to establish that the statutory grounds exist to appoint a guardian or conservator. The record outlined in part II of this opinion clearly and convincingly shows that at the relevant time, that is, at the time of the appointment of the guardian and conservator, Hyde v. Crocker, supra , Sim was, because of advanced age, suffering from a mental deficiency such as to render her unable to care for herself or to manage her assets. She is therefore an incapacitated person within the contemplation of § 30-2619. The record also clearly and convincingly establishes that Sim is incapable of demanding an accounting and is unable to understand any accounting her trustee might provide her. She is therefore, as more fully discussed in section 12 hereinafter, a person having property and property affairs which she cannot manage, thereby rendering her property vulnerable to waste and dissipation. Sim is therefore also within the contemplation of § 30-2630. Accordingly, there is no merit to this assignment of error.