Legal Aid of Palm Beach County v. Guardianship of Jaffe

Legal Aid Soc'y of Palm Beach Cnty., Inc. v. Guardianship of Jaffe, 178 So.3d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

This case involves a dispute under Florida's Public Guardianship law following a trial court's order allowing one guardian to withdraw and appointing Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. ("Legal Aid") in its place.  

This situation was created by an apparently difficult ward who had at least six court-appointed guardians, the most recent being Ferd and Gladys Alpert Jewish Family & Children's Service of Palm Beach County, Inc. ("AJFCS").  Unable to control the ward, AJFCS sought to withdraw as guardian and suggested that the Statewide Public Guardian be appointed its place.  It did not put the Statewide Public Guardian or Legal Aid (the local public guardian) on notice, as required by Florida Probate Rule 5.560(c).  The probate court approved of AJFCS's resignation and appointed Legal Aid as the successor guardian.  

Legal Aid immediately sought a rehearing, asserting that it could not accept the appointment because if it took another ward it would exceed the statutory ratio of staff-to-wards provided in F.S. 744.708(7).  The probate court granted the rehearing, and to remedy the over-capacity concern, it ordered AJFCS to "swap" with Legal Aid, and take over as guardian of a ward of Legal Aid.  

On appeal, the Court held that the trial court had no authority to appoint Legal Aid as guardian of the ward.  It reviewed the history of Florida's Public Guardianship law and the statutes governing public guardianship offices throughout the state. It found that F.S. 744.708(7) does not allow a trial court to compel the public guardian to exceed the statutorily imposed ratio.  Nor can a trial court appoint the public guardian without notice to the public guardian under Florida Probate Rule 5.560.

The Court was concerned with the trial court's proposal to "swap" the wards to allow Legal Aid to remain within its ratio of staff-to-wards.  The Court disagreed that swapping was a solution to the issue, because wards are not fungible - every ward has a guardianship plan, public guardians must personally visit their wards quarterly to develop some rapport with the ward, and a guardian is only able to withdraw if the court is assured that the ward's interest will not be placed in jeopardy.  The Court recognized that the trial court was in a difficult position, and suggested that if the ward was truly a danger to herself, the court could have approved an involuntary hospitalization or placement, or could have requested the involvement of the Statewide Public Guardianship Office and the chief judge to review the capacity of the public guardian in Palm Beach County.

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