The court appears to have made an informed decision based upon the alternatives. Applying a deferential standard, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in appointing Mr. Parker as appellant’s conservator. B. Denial of Motion to Transfer Assets to Maryland Appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling denying without prejudice his motion to transfer his assets to the state of Maryland where he resides. He acknowledges that the jurisdiction of the court to maintain the estate in the District of Columbia, but he contends that it should not have done so. See D.C.Code § 21-2021(2) (providing for application of the guardianship statute when there is property located in the District of an individual to be protected); see also Mayes v. Sanford, 641 A.2d 855, 857 (D.C.1994) (<HOLDING>). Appellees point out that Mr. McMillan’s
holding that in temporary guardianship proceeding for woman with mental retardation the allegedly incapacitated person must appear because that persons rights are being limited even if for a short period of time holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion holding that the fact that the incapacitated person has assets in the district alone provides a sufficient basis for keeping the case here holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case