Martinez v. Guardianship of Smith

Martinez v. Guardianship of Smith, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), 2015 WL 1238445

In this case, a wife appealed the order appointing a professional guardian for her husband, since the trial court failed to apply the statutory presumption of F.S. 744.3045 where her husband had given her power of attorney and appointed her as his preneed guardian and health care surrogate.  The Court held that because the trial court failed to make a specific finding that the appointment of the wife was contrary to the best interests of the ward, the order appointing professional guardian was reversed.

In its decision, the Court detailed the various ways the professional guardian and the wife were at odds about the ward's care.  Particularly, their disputes centered around the ward's residence and the fact that he had been moved from institution to institution.  The Court ultimately held that the wife's conflicts with the institutions and her difficultly communicating with the staff was not enough to overcome the statutory presumption of F.S. 744.3045 nor her appointment as her husband's health care surrogate pursuant to chapter 765.

F.S. 744.3045 allows an individual to make a written declaration naming a guardian to serve in the event of that person's incapacity.  A court is not bound to appoint the preneed guardian if the guardian is found to be unqualified to serve as guardian (F.S. 744.3045(4)), or if the court determines that appointing that person is contrary to the best interests of the ward (F.S.744.312(4)).  Since here, the wife was qualified to serve, the only way for the court to ignore the designation of preneed guardian would be for the court to make a specific finding that the specific actions/inactions of the designee were sufficiently egregious as to be contrary to the best interests of the ward.  Citing the Koshenina v. Buvens decision, the Court explained that the fact that another relative might be a better caregiver is not enough, nor is a finding that a designated preneed guardian is lacking in interpersonal and social skills enough to justify a trial court's failure to appoint that person.  The Court held that the mere existence of the wife's conflict with the staff of the nursing facility was not enough to show that her appointment would be contrary to the best interests of the ward.

Similarly, the Court held that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of facts to overcome the ward's designation of health care surrogate pursuant to chapter 765.  The court may revoke the authority of the surrogate if the surrogate or proxy has abused its powers.  F.S. 765.105(5).  The Court acknowledged that Florida law provides us with little guidance about what constitutes a proxy's abuse of power, but looked at the designation document itself, which granted the wife the authority to determine her husband's residence, and found that the fact that she had moved her husband several times and does not communicate well with the present facility's staff was not enough to show that she "abused powers" nor that she acted contrary to the ward's best interest. 


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 stamped the will.  The testator
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