- 6 -
conservator under California law, we conclude that he lacks the
capacity, standing alone, to engage in litigation in this Court.
Rule 60(d) provides an avenue for infants or incompetent
persons to prosecute a case in this Court. Specifically, Rule
60(d) provides that a duly appointed representative may bring a
case on behalf of an infant or incompetent person. In the
absence of a duly appointed representative, Rule 60(d) provides
that an infant or incompetent person may act by a next friend or
by a guardian ad litem. We have said that the purpose of Rule
60(d) “is to protect and preserve the rights and interests of
those taxpayers under the legal disability of infancy or
incompetency.” Eiges v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 61, 67 (1993);
see Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989) (and
cases cited therein). Consistent with the plain language of Rule
60(d), the recognition of a next friend or the appointment of a
guardian ad litem rests within the sound discretion of the Court.
Mrs. Campos has informed the Court that she has not been
duly appointed to act as Mr. Campos’s representative. Thus,
under Rule 60(d), the question arises whether the Court should
recognize Mrs. Campos as Mr. Campos’s next friend or appoint her
as Mr. Campos’s guardian ad litem.
For present purposes, we observe that there is no meaningful
difference between the role of a next friend and a guardian ad
litem. Eiges v. Commissioner, supra at 66-67. The term “next
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011