Showing posts from July, 2019

Wallace v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc.

Wallace v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. , 275 So.3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision highlights the disconnect between the Appellate Courts and the reality of practicing guardianship law. Here, prior to an incapacity proceeding, the court in a related trust matter entered a protective order dealing with the dissemination of medical records. Later, prior to filing for guardianship, the AIP's son sought an order from the court allowing him to attach those medical records to his petition to determine incapacity. The trial court denied his request. The Appellate Court affirmed, basing its analysis on the procedures set forth in Chapter 744. Apparently, the Court has a great deal of faith that the members of examining committees will abide by the provisions of Chapter 744. The Court seemed to feel that because the petitioner can outline the factual basis for their beliefs in their petition, can name the AIP's attending physician, and because F.S. 744.331 r

Mullins v. Mullins

Mullins v. Mullins , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) This decision deals with the effect of an order determining homestead on a beneficiary's interest in the homestead property. Specifically, the Court considered whether a consent to the entry of an order determining homestead, where that order does not properly lay out the ownership interests in the property, is enough to actually alter the parties ownership interests. The Court held that it did not. The decedent in question left her homestead to her three children, subject to a life estate for two of the three children for as long as they wanted to live there. The probate court entered an order determining homestead which stated that the homestead was devised in equal shares to the three children but failed to mention the life estates. The Court considered whether the homestead order in and of itself could eradicate the life estates. It held that because the consents to the homestead order were not formal agreements to

Kaminsky v. Hecht

Kaminsky v. Hecht , 272 So.3d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) Does the Florida long-arm statute reach trustees of trusts administered elsewhere with beneficiaries in Florida? Committing a tortious act within the state is one of the enumerated acts which can give rise to jurisdiction for purposes of the long-arm statute. Fla. Stat. 48.193(1)a.2. While physical presence is not required to commit a tortious act for purposes of the long-arm statute, mere injury in Florida from a tortious act committed elsewhere is not enough. Here, the Court found that the trustee of a trust who had never resided in Florida, had not administered the trust in Florida and did not hold trust assets in Florida, but may have failed to account to Florida beneficiaries or mismanaged trust assets for Florida beneficiaries did not meet the requirements of the long-arm statute for the Florida court to have jurisdiction over the trustee.