Rudolph v. Rosecan

Rudolph v. Rosecan, 154 So.3d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), 2014 WL 6674749

This decision deals with who is considered an "interested person" in a guardianship proceeding for purposes of objecting to a guardian's annual accounting.  Here, a father was appointed plenary guardian of his adult autistic son's person and property.  A parenting plan was incorporated into the order appointing the father as guardian, and that parenting plan provided for the father and mother to have shared decision making authority and information sharing rights with regard to their son.  It expressly provided that the father had ultimate authority to make decisions about his son's person, but did not address financial decisions.

The father voluntarily provided the mother with copies of his annual guardianship accountings over the years, but eventually sought a court order declaring that the mother was not an interested person for purposes of the annual accounting.  The trial court agreed, because the mother had no financial rights or obligations with regard to the son, so she would not be affected by the outcome of the guardianship proceeding.

The mother argued that she was an interested person by virtue of the parenting plan which allowed her to be involved in major decisions regarding her son.  The Court disagreed.  Under F.S. 744.3701(1), the only people who can inspect a guardianship report are the court, the clerk, the clerk's representative, the guardian, the guardian's attorney, the ward and the ward's attorney.  While F.S. 744.367(4) allows an "interested person" to object to the report, the Court disagreed with the mother that she was an interested person in this proceeding.  It held that the concept of an "interested person" is fluid and varies with the facts of the case. A person's status as an "interested person" is dependent upon whether the person would be affected by the outcome of the particular proceedings.  Being "next of kin" does not confer "interested person" status. 

Since the parenting plan did not give the mother any rights relating to financial decisions,the Court held that she was not an "interested person" with standing to object to the annual accounting. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 stamped the will.  The testator
Read more

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

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, &quo
Read more