’ ” In re Mitchell, 914 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Mo.Ct.App.1996) (quoting In re Gollaher, 724 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Mo.Ct.App.1986)); see also id. at 848–49 (“[T]he decision of whom to appoint lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”); In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.Ct.App.1991) (“The appointment of a guardian is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the probate court.”). ¶ 9 As a result, an appellate court reviews the trial court's appointment of a guardian or conservator for an abuse of discretion.

The "appointment of a guardian is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the [district] court" and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).

The appointment of a guardian is generally within the discretion of the district court. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).

On August 1, 2020, the statutory definition was amended, but these changes do not impact our analysis. We review the district court's decision to appoint a guardian for abuse of discretion, In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn. App.1991), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992), but we review factual findings underlying that decision for clear 5 error and view the record in the light most favorable to those findings, In re Civil Commitment of Spicer, 853 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn.App. 2014); In re Guardianship of Wells, 733 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn.

"The reviewing court shall not interfere with the exercise of this discretion except in the case of clear abuse." In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992); Wells, 733 N.W.2d at 509.

The appointment of guardians and conservators is a matter for and within the discretion of the probate court. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992); In re Conservatorship of Kocemba, 429 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Minn. App. 1988).

The choice of a guardian is within the trial court's discretion. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).

While the district court has wide discretion in guardianship matters, this discretion is not boundless, and the Minnesota guardianship statutes are specific in their requirement that the district court make factual findings on a guardian's qualifications . In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 796-97 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).

Our construction of § 45a-676 (f) is in accord with the great weight of authority interpreting guardianship statutes containing similar language. For example, in In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), the Minnesota Appellate Court interpreted a statute that instructed the court to "make a finding that appointment of the person chosen as guardian or conservator is in the best interests of the ward"; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 525.551(5); where "best interests" was defined as "all relevant factors . . . including but not limited to: (1) the reasonable preference of the ward or conservatee, if the court determines the ward or conservatee has sufficient capacity to express a preference . . . ." Minn. Stat. Ann. § 525.532(7).

We review a district court's decision to appoint a guardian for a clear abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn.App. 1991), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992). When reviewing a district court's decision to appoint a guardian, we do not reverse factual findings unless they "are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court's determinations regarding witness credibility." In re Guardianship of Wells, 733 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007).