Howard v. Howard

Howard v. Howard, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

While most practitioners are familiar with the rules and procedures surrounding the guardianship process, many are less familiar with the procedural requirements for the appointment of a guardian advocate on behalf of someone with a developmental disability.  This decision deals with two such procedural requirements: (1) what constitutes a finding of "good cause" to proceed with the guardianship proceeding without the potential ward present and (2) the requirements for a written order appointing guardian advocates.  

Good Cause to Proceed Without Potential Ward:

Here, the potential ward did not attend the hearing on her family's petition for the appointment of guardian advocates.  The ward's attorney did not waive his client's presence, but did state on the record that he had communicated with her and she did not want to attend.  The ward's father testified about the ward's physical and mental limitations, and the court also received doctors' reports regarding her condition.  Based on the facts presented at the hearing, the trial court entered an order appointing the ward's family as her guardian advocates.

The ward argued that the court failed to make a finding of good cause when it proceeded with the hearing without her being present, as required by F.S. 393.12(6)(c).  The Court held that F.S. 393.12 required the court to make a finding that the ward's waiver of her right to appear was made knowingly and voluntarily.  This can be done by examining the ward on the record or by examining third parties who know the ward.  Here, since the trial court had heard from the ward's attorney who stated that the ward did not want to attend, the Court held that the trial court had implicitly considered the ward's decision not to appear as good cause to hold the hearing in her absence.

Requirements for an Order Appointing Guardian Advocate:

The Court also considered whether the trial court's order appointing the ward's family as her guardian advocates satisfied the requirements of F.S. 393.12(8).  The Court found that because the trial court failed to make findings as to the nature and scope of the ward's lack of decision-making ability, and failed to make a finding as to the specific legal disabilities to which the ward was subject, the order did not comply with F.S. 393.12.

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