Re: Gurarianship: Bond v. Round
Annotate this CaseIn 2009, Andy and Ronna Bond filed an action to be appointed guardians of two children who were at that time two and eight years of age. Mother Amber Round was initially represented by counsel, but counsel was permitted to withdraw and she did not file a timely notice of how she would proceed. Her default was entered on a few months later, and she filed a motion to set aside the default on the same day. The following day, she also filed a notice of appearance, informing the magistrate court that she would be representing herself. She claimed that she had moved and did not receive notice of her attorney’s withdrawal. The magistrate court held a hearing on Mother’s motion to set aside the default. The court found, considering the evidence presented and Mother’s credibility and demeanor, that service was properly made upon her. It therefore denied her motion to set aside the default. The magistrate court then appointed the Guardians on the ground that Mother and father Ty Round were unable to provide the children with a stable home environment. Father and Mother were later divorced. Mother appealed to the district court, and filed a petition to terminate the guardianship and a motion to allow for visitation. These motions were transferred to the magistrate division of the district court, where Mother's petition to terminate guardianship was denied, but she was allowed visitation. The Guardians appealed the grant of visitation and the magistrate court’s sua sponte denial of attorney fees to both parties without a hearing. The Supreme Court agreed that the magistrate court did not err in granting the mother visitation with her children, but on different grounds than asserted by the district court. The Court reversed the district court’s decision that the magistrate court did not err in denying an award of attorney fees sua sponte without the opportunity for a hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.