Interest of Huckabee

── Interest of Huckabee ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General 25CA0664 Interest of Huckabee 04-23-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA0664 Arapahoe County District Court No. 12PR639 Honorable H. Clay Hurst, Judge In the Interest of Kevin Huckabee, Ward, Helena Huckabee, Appellant, v. Tammy Conover, Guardian Ad Litem-Appellee. ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division V Opinion by JUDGE TOW Welling and Lipinsky, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 23, 2026 Solem, Woodward & McKinley, P.C., R. Eric Solem, Andrew Gwirtsman, Englewood, Colorado, for Appellant Paige Mackey Murray, LLC, Paige Mackey Murray, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee ¶1 Helena Huckabee (mother) appeals the district court’s order awarding compensation to Tammy Conover, the appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for mother’s son, Kevin Huckabee (ward). We reverse the order and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Background ¶2 Paul Huckabee (father) and mother served as co-guardians for their profoundly disabled adult son, the ward. After the dissolution of mother and father’s marriage, a dispute about the ward’s care arose, which mother and father resolved with a settlement agreement. As part of this agreement, father and mother agreed to appoint the GAL to represent the ward’s best interests. The settlement agreement also provided that “[t]he cost of the GAL will be split equally.” The court granted father’s unopposed motion for approval of the settlement agreement and appointment of the GAL. ¶3 After ongoing conflict, father filed a motion to remove mother as co-guardian, which the GAL supported. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion. ¶4 Mother then stopped paying the GAL. After nine months of nonpayment, the GAL filed a motion seeking an order directing mother to pay the GAL $31,200.90. Attached to the motion was a 1  document titled “Huckabee invoice and payment division,” showing two charts with dates, invoice numbers, and the amount the GAL asserted mother owed. ¶5 The GAL filed a notice of hearing without appearance pursuant to C.R.P.P. 24. Before the hearing date, mother filed an objection to the GAL’s compensation request and asked the court to set an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the requested compensation. Mother cited section 15-10-603, C.R.S. 2025, for the proposition that the court must consider certain factors when determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. Her motion was filed on a judicial department form, which included language stating, “I understand that I must contact the court within [fourteen] days after filing this objection to set this matter for an appearance hearing. If I fail to do so, I understand that the court will take further action as it deems appropriate.” ¶6 But mother did not set the matter for an appearance hearing. Nor did the court conduct a nonappearance hearing. Rather, the court ordered mother to pay the GAL $31,200.90 within fourteen days. In the order, the court found that the GAL was appointed pursuant to the settlement agreement, mother and father had each 2  agreed to pay half of the GAL’s fees, and mother owed the GAL $31,200.90. ¶7 Mother filed a motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider was deemed denied under C.R.C.P. 59(j) when the probate court failed to rule on it within sixty-three days of its filing. This appeal followed. II. Recovery Statute Procedures A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶8 “We review a court’s application of procedural rules de novo.” In re Estate of Gonzalez, 2024 COA 63, ¶ 24. “And to the extent ou