Lovest v. Mangiero

Lovest v. Mangiero, 279 So.3d 205 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2019)

This decision illustrates some of the difficulties that arise when guardianship and estate proceedings intersect. Here, after the ward died, the guardian and then personal representative sought to pay some of the ward's creditors using artwork done by the decedent, an artist. One of the beneficiaries of the ward's estate objected, arguing that the guardianship court's orders violated her due process rights, the guardianship court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the guardian should have provided proper accountings. 

The Court held that the beneficiary's due process rights were not violated because notice  was sent to her of the petition to pay the debts with the artwork by certified mail (even though it was returned as undeliverable). It noted that FPR 5.060(a) allows an interested person who desires notice to file a written request for notice of further proceedings, which then allows the trial court the opportunity to determine whether that person is interested. Because the beneficiary failed to file this request, the court could not determine whether she was an "interested party" and thus she was not entitled to notice.

The Court also held that the guardianship court retained subject matter jurisdiction even after the ward had died because F.S. 744.527(2) allows the guardian to retain funds for the final costs of administration regardless of the death of the ward.

Lastly, the Court held that even though the guardian had not filed timely annual reports, F.S. 744.3685 puts the burden on the court to order the guardian to file the delinquent reports. Because the court had never ordered the guardian to provide the accountings, a beneficiary could not argue that the accountings were not timely.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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