Opinion ID: 1903080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 16] Finally, Nichols challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both the temporary and permanent orders appointing Regan as guardian and conservator. We review the trial court's findings of fact supporting the order for clear error, and the determination of the guardian's powers and duties for an abuse of discretion. Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898, 900 (Me.1995). Our inquiry in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil matter is whether by any reasonable view of the evidence, including inferences to be drawn therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the [judgment] can be sustained. Bernier v. Merrill Air Engr's, 2001 ME 17, ¶ 20, 770 A.2d 97, 104 (citation omitted). The existence of contradictory evidence does not, in itself, require us to conclude that insufficient evidence exists to support the judgment, however, because the fact-finder may believe some, all, or none of a witness's testimony. State v. Bartlett, 661 A.2d 1107, 1108 (Me.1995). Rather, unless there is no record evidence to support the appointment of a guardian and conservator, we will uphold the court's decision. See Westleigh v. Conger, 2000 ME 134, ¶ 12, 755 A.2d 518, 520. [¶ 17] A temporary guardian may be appointed by ex parte order [w]hen a person alleged to be incapacitated has no guardian and an emergency exists and no other person appears to have authority to act in the circumstances, upon appropriate petition . . . . 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-310-A(a) (1998). Further, [a] petition for temporary guardianship must be accompanied by an affidavit that sets forth the factual basis for the emergency and the specific powers requested by the proposed guardian. 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-310-A(a). Because the testimonial hearing on which the court's temporary order was based was apparently not recorded, there is no transcript available for our review of the findings. Nichols did not submit a statement of the evidence in lieu of a transcript pursuant to M.R.App. P. 5(d). Thus, because Nichols has supplied us with no factual record to review, we must assume that adequate evidence exists to support the court's temporary order. See Rothstein v. Maloney, 2002 ME 179, ¶ 11, 816 A.2d 812, 813-14 (Without a transcript, we must assume that the record fully supports the findings and discretionary choices [of the court].). [¶ 18] With regard to the court's permanent order, for the court to appoint Regan as Florence's guardian and conservator, the court was required to, and did, find: that the person for whom a guardian is sought is incapacitated, that the appointment is necessary or desirable as a means of providing continuing care and supervision . . . of the incapacitated person and, if the allegedly incapacitated person has not attended the hearing, that an inquiry has been made as to whether that person wished to attend the hearing. 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-304(b) (Supp. 2004). The record from the hearing on the court's permanent order discloses that sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of each of the necessary elements for issuance of the permanent order naming Regan as Florence's guardian and conservator. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.