Saadeh v. Connors

Saadeh v. Connors, 166 So.3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

 In this portion of the Saadeh guardianship saga, the court was asked to determine whether an attorney representing a court-appointed guardian in a guardianship proceeding owes a duty to the ward under a third-party beneficiary theory.  The Court ultimately found that it did. 

 This case began with an emergency temporary guardianship proceeding, in which a court-appointed attorney was appointed to represent the alleged incapacitated person, a professional guardian was appointed, and that guardian had his own counsel.  As part of an "agreed" order to "settle" the guardianship, the court entered an ordered agreeing that the alleged incapacitated person would execute a trust instead of a plenary guardianship.  The agreed order did not settle the matter, unfortunately, and the litigation continued.

 Eventually, the alleged incapacitated person was found competent and brought suit against multiple players in the guardianship proceeding, including the guardian's attorney for professional negligence.  He alleged that the guardian's attorney attempted to improperly advise him about the mechanics of the trust. 

 The guardian's attorney argued that there was no privity of contract between her and the alleged incapacitated person, and thus she owed him no duty.  The trial court agreed.  

 The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the alleged incapacitated person was, in fact, the intended third party beneficiary of the services provided by the guardian's attorney.  The Court first considered the Guardianship Statutes.  It held that since the court must appoint counsel to represent an emergency temporary guardian, and that during the temporary guardianship, the emergency temporary guardian is the alleged incapacitated person's fiduciary, even though there is no lawyer-client relationship between the alleged incapacitated person and the lawyer for the emergency temporary guardian, counsel for the emergency temporary guardian owes a duty of care to the temporary ward.

 The Court also compared a guardianship proceeding with an adoption proceeding, noting that both involve the protection of an incapacitated person.  The Court had held in Rushing v. Bosse that privity of contract was not necessary where a child was the intended beneficiary of an adoption and the defendants were the attorneys for the adoptive parents.  

 The Court finally explained, through a 1996 opinion of former Attorney General Robert Butterworth, that since F.S. 744.108 authorizes payment of fees to an attorney who renders services to a guardian on a ward's behalf, the statute itself recognizes that the services performed by an attorney who is compensated from the ward's estate are performed for the ward even though the attorney technically provides the services to the guardian.

 The Court concluded, "we find that [the ward] and everything associated with his well-being is the very essence, i.e. the exact point, of our guardianship statutes.  As a matter of law, the ward in situations as this, is both the primary and intended beneficiary of his estate.  To tolerate anything less would be nonsensical and would strip the ward of the dignity to which the ward is wholly entitled."

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