Whiting v. Whiting

Whiting v. Whiting, 160 So.3d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)

In this guardianship, the guardianship court entered into an order appointing a guardian for an alleged incapacitated person based upon a Stipulation for Limited Guardianship entered into by the parties.  That Order restricted the ward's ability to manage her personal financial affairs beyond a $1,500 limit for any single transaction and also limited her ability to give gifts to $1,500 per person per year.  Following the entry of the Order, the Ward amended her estate plan to leave all of her assets to one of her sons, leaving out her other two sons who had previously been included as equal beneficiaries.  

Following the Ward's death, one of the excluded sons sought to set aside the trust amendment based upon the plain language of the Order.  The trial court concluded that the Order was clear and unambiguous, refused to consider parol evidence, and construed the provisions limiting the Ward's ability to make gifts or enter into financial transactions as an unambiguous restriction on her ability to alter her trust.

The Court disagreed and found that the Order contained ambiguities which presented genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.  The Order was not clear whether it was a voluntary or involuntary guardianship, since the court did not affirmative find the ward mentally competent and include a physician's certificate attesting to same, as is required for a voluntary guardianship, nor did it adjudicate the ward to be incapacitated, as is required for an involuntary guardianship.  The Order also did not clearly address whether the Ward had the ability to amend her trust.  

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