Hernandez v. Hernandez

Hernandez v. Hernandez, 230 So.3d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

In guardianship cases, the probate court has discretion to determine who is an "interested person" in a particular proceeding based on the particular purpose of, and the matter involved in, that proceeding. In this proceeding relating to the payment of attorney's fees from a Ward's assets, the Ward's son alleged that he had standing as an interested person to object to the payment of those fees.  

The attorney's fees being sought in this case generated from the following proceedings:
(1) After one of the Ward's sons allegedly mistreated her, her other son petitioned to be appointed as her plenary guardian, to which the first son objected.
(2) Once the second son was appointed as plenary guardian for his mother, he engaged in an adversary proceeding against the first brother and his family for mistreating the mother.
(3) The second son, as guardian, petitioned to sell the Ward's property to pay for her care, to which the first son objected.

The first son did not receive notice of the petitions for fees.  Nonetheless, the probate court approved the petitions for fees, and denied the first son's objections to those orders, finding that he was not an "interested person" entitled to notice of these petitions with standing to object.  The first son appealed, arguing that he was an an interested person in this proceeding because he was an active participant in the guardianship and filed a request for copies under FPR 5.060.

The Court disagreed.  It noted that F.S. 744.108 provides that a petition for fees cannot be approved without prior notice to the guardian and the ward.  The Florida Supreme Court in Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2006) considered whether the language of F.S. 744.108 limited standing to only the guardian and the ward, and held that the determination of who is an "interested person" in a particular guardianship proceeding varied from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and the matter involved in, the proceeding.  Simply being next of kin does not confer "interested person" status, nor does filing a notice and request for copies under FPR 5.060 and being an active participant in the proceedings.  

Ultimately, the Court held that Chapter 744 and the Hayes decision allow the probate court to strike a balance between ensuring that petitions for attorney's fees are carefully scrutinized and ensuring that these petitions are not subject to endless challenges by those whose only interest is to maximize their potential inheritance, and that the probate court had properly balanced the two in finding that the son lacked standing to object. It emphasized that a petitioners' involvement in guardianship proceedings that were necessitated by their own mistreatment of the ward and misappropriation of the ward's funds does not entitle them to then participate in proceedings involving requests for attorney's fees.

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