M. Krumholz v. Guardianship of H.K.

M. Krumholz v. Guardianship of H.K., 114 So.3d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)

An order determining that an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) is totally incapacitated and appointing a plenary guardian to act on his or her behalf requires a recitation of the requisite findings of fact required by F.S. 744.331(6)(c).  F.S. 744.331(6)(c) requires that, "In determining that a person is totally incapacitated, the order must contain findings of fact demonstrating that the individual is totally without capacity to care for herself or himself or her or his property."

Here, the trial court entered an order determining the AIP was totally incapacitated, that there were no reasonable alternatives to guardianship, that no alternatives would sufficiently address the AIP's problems and needs, and appointed a professional guardian.  The order contained the following description of the nature and scope of the AIP's incapacities:

"Imminent danger that the physical or mental health or safety will be seriously impaired.  She suffers from dementia, memory loss and amnestic cognitive impairment and delusions."

Because there were no other findings of fact in the order, the Appellate Court found that the order failed to contain sufficient findings of fact to satisfy F.S. 744.331(6)(c).  Judge Rothenberg had presided over the initial hearing and had since retired.  Since he is now serving as a private mediator for similar types of cases, he is prevented from preparing an order because of Canon 5F(2) in the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The cause was remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing before a successor judge.

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