Drelich v. Guardianship of Drelich

Drelich v. Guardianship of Drelich, 2013 WL 5629770

The intersection of guardianship and family law often presents a new spin on our typical guardianship fact patterns.  Here, husband and wife were married with both pre and post nuptial agreements.  Husband later filed for dissolution of the marriage.  The wife filed a motion to stay or abate the divorce proceedings, and alleged that her husband was incapacitated, that she anticipated filing a guardianship proceeding and that she was asking for fees, since her husband (or really, his agents), filed the divorce proceeding in bad faith.

The wife's guardianship pleadings did not mention the pending divorce.  In his response, the husband denied the allegations in her petition and moved for fees and costs based on his wife's bad faith in filing the guardianship proceeding.  He admitted that he was depressed, but said he was completely capable of making his own decisions.

The examining committee unanimously found the husband to be competent, so the wife dismissed her petition for guardianship.  When the husband asked for his fees and costs in the guardianship proceeding, the guardianship court denied.

The appellate court noted that the wife's petition was filled with omissions of material facts and false allegations, and was filed for the purpose of delaying the divorce proceedings.  It held pursuant to F.S. 744.331(7)(a), that the husband was entitled to a hearing on whether the wife's guardianship petition was filed in bad faith, in order to determine whether he was entitled to his fees and costs in the guardianship proceeding.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more