Sarfaty v. M.S.

Sarfaty v. M.S., --- So. 3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

In this guardianship decision, the Court considered how strictly to interpret F.S. 744.331 and FPR 5.550, dealing with the required procedures following the filing of a petition to determine incapacity. It held in situations like this one, where the procedural deficiencies were a result of actions of the parties and occurred with everyone's knowledge, such deficiencies are not enough to result in a dismissal of the petition without leave to amend.

The alleged deficiencies were twofold.  First, counsel for the AIP argued that the petition should be dismissed because of the alleged failure of court-appointed counsel to read the petition and form notice to the AIP.  Second, counsel argued that the petition should be dismissed because the examining committee members did not file their reports within the fifteen day period required by F.S. 744.331(3)(e).  The trial court dismissed the petition and ruled orally that an amendment to the petition would not be allowed.

The Court reversed, finding that while counsel's arguments may constitute legal defenses to the petition, they failed to establish the legal insufficiency of the petition.  Appellants argued that substantial compliance with the statute and rule were insufficient based on the holdings of In re Fey, 624 So.2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) and Borden v. Guardianship of Borden-Moore, 8181 So.2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).  The Court held that even though In re Fey states that "compliance with section 744.331 and rule 5.550 is mandatory," the non-compliance here caused no fundamental error- there was no evidence presented that the court-appointed counsel did not actually read the petition to the AIP, the AIP substituted in independent counsel fairly quickly, private counsel and other family members were present for the examining committee meetings and the matter was continued by agreement of all parties.


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