Francisco E. Campos, Jr. and Lualhati N. Campos - Page 6

                                        - 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