Allison v. Fierar - Guardianship Fee Dispute Affirmed

Oregon Court of Appeals

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision in Allison v. Fierar, regarding the allocation of guardianship and attorney fees. The court found the petitioner's claim regarding fee allocation to be unpreserved, declining to review for plain error.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in a non-precedential memorandum opinion, affirmed a limited judgment concerning attorney and fiduciary fees in a guardianship proceeding. The court determined that the petitioner's challenge to the allocation of fees, which were not fully covered by the protected person's funds and benefits, was unpreserved because no objection was raised before the limited judgment was entered. The court cited ORAP 10.30 and relevant case law regarding preservation and plain error review.

This decision means the original fee allocation stands. The petitioner and the protected person's father are responsible for the remaining fees not covered by the protected person's assets. As this is a non-precedential opinion, its direct applicability is limited, but it reinforces the importance of timely objections in trial court proceedings to preserve appellate rights. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities beyond general awareness of procedural requirements in fee disputes.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Allison v. Fierar

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Citations: 347 Or. App. 695
Docket Number: A186470
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Judges: Hellman
Disposition: Affirmed.
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 191 March 11, 2026 695

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Abigail Grace Allison,
Protected Person.
Dawn ALLISON,
Appellant,
v.
Janet L. FIERAR,
as Guardian for Abigail Grace Allison; Abigail Grace
Allison, Protected Person; and Rex Allison,
Respondents.
Deschutes County Circuit Court
22PR02084; A186470

Alison M. Emerson, Judge.
Argued and submitted January 21, 2026.
Christopher L. Cauble argued the cause for appellant.
Also on the briefs was Cauble, Furr & Beguin, LLP.
Jeffry S. Hinman argued the cause for respondent Abigail
Grace Allison. Also on the briefs was Hinman Law, P. C.
No appearance for respondents Rex Allison and Janet L.
Fierar.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
HELLMAN, J.
Affirmed.
696 Allison v. Fierar

HELLMAN, J.
Petitioner appeals a limited judgment awarding
attorney fees and court-appointed fiduciary fees incurred
in a proceeding to establish guardianship over petitioner’s
disabled adult daughter, A. On appeal, petitioner assigns
error to the trial court’s order that required petitioner and
A’s father to pay the portion of the attorney and fiduciary
fees that remained after reimbursement from A’s funds and
benefits.
In the trial court, petitioner did not object to the
joint petition for fees, which included a request that the
fees not covered by A’s funds and benefits be allocated to
A’s parents, at any time before the limited judgment was
entered. As a result, petitioner’s claim is unpreserved. Ailes
v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 380-81, 823 P2d 956
(1991); ORAP 5.45(1). When a claim is unpreserved, our
review is for plain error. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629,
317 P3d 889 (2013). Petitioner does not request plain error
review, and we decline to exercise our discretion to engage
in it without being requested to do so. See State v. Ardizzone,
270 Or App 666, 673, 349 P3d 597, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015)
(“[W]e ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain
error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so
because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us
why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, fur-
ther, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that
error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
Affirmed.