Adelman v. Elfenbein

Adelman v. Elfenbein, 174 So.3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), 2015 WL 5026178

Following the dismissal of a petition for incapacity because the court found sufficient least restrictive alternatives to guardianship, the petitioner brought a subsequent "petition to reopen" the guardianship, alleging that the fiduciary appointed in the alleged incapacitated person's advance directive documents was not providing adequate care for that person. The trial court entertained the petition, conducted a trial, and ultimately appointed a professional guardian for the ward. 

The Court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order appointing the professional guardian.  It held that once a court makes an appropriate finding of least restrictive alternatives to guardianship and chooses not to appoint a guardian, the appropriate method for reviewing that finding is by filing a timely motion for rehearing pursuant to Fla. Prob. R. 5.020(d), or filing an appeal pursuant to Fla. Prob. R. 5.100 and Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).  Because the petitioner did neither, the trial court no longer had continuing jurisdiction over the incapacity proceeding.  The Court did not agree that the trial court has parens patriae responsibility to the alleged incapacitated person, and that the law provides adequate remedies to prevent abuse by a fiduciary pursuant to an advanced directive, through the Florida Power of Attorney Act (F.S. 709.2101-.2402) and the Adult Protective Services Act (F.S. 415.101-.113).

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