IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF AMALIA QUINDT. WILHELMINA QUINDT THORPE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGUERITE LARSEN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wilhelmina Quindt Thorpe appealed the denial of her petition to be appointed guardian of her 97-year-old incompetent mother, Amalia Quindt, after the court instead appointed a neighbor, Marguerite Larsen. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that while next of kin receive first consideration, the statute does not mandate their appointment, and the ward's best interests and expressed wishes support appointing the non-relative.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although Florida Statute Section 744.312 gives first consideration to qualified next of kin, the statute does not mandatorily require such an appointment. The court may appoint any qualified person, and the ward's best interests, including her expressed wishes and personal preferences, may justify departing from the statutory preference for next of kin.
[1] A court does not abuse its discretion in appointing a non-relative as guardian when the ward's best interests, including expressed wishes and existing relationships, supp…
[2] Florida Statutes Section 744.312 does not mandate the appointment of next of kin as guardian, but rather allows the court to appoint any qualified person.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court may appoint any person who is qualified ... whether related to the ward or not.”
Establishes that the statute does not mandate appointment of next of kin, but allows discretion to appoint any qualified person.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmalia Quindt, age 97, was declared incompetent by the Dade County circuit court. Her daughter, Wilhelmina Quindt Thorpe, petitioned to be appointed a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Appointment Of Guardian cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The appellant, Wilhelmina Quindt Thorpe, is the daughter of 97-year-old Amalia Quindt, who was declared an incompetent by the Dade County circuit court. She claims error in an order which denied her petition for appointment as Mrs. Quindt’s guardian and granted the competing petition of a neighbor of the ward, Marguerite Larsen. We find, however, that the court did not abuse its discretion in making the appointment under the controlling terms of Section 744.312, Florida Statutes (1979).1 While the next of kin are given first consideration by Section 744.312(2)(a), the statute does not mandatorily require that such an appointment be made. To the contrary, the statute specifically provides that “[t]he court may appoint any person who is qualified ... whether related to the ward or not.” The record in this case provides ample justification — including Mrs. Quindt’s personal enmity towards her daughter, her expressed wishes “as to who shall be appointed,” which must be considered under Sec. 744.312(3)(a), and Ms. Larsen’s longstanding favorable relationship with her— to support the determination that the ward’s best interests required that Ms. Larsen, and not Mrs. Thorpe, act as her guardian. See, Comerford v. Cherry, 100 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1958); In re Guardianship of Davidson, 259 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Compare, In re Castro, 344 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1978), in which the court found no legally cognizable reason for departing from the statutory order of preference.
The other points do not present harmful error. Affirmed.
. 744.312 Considerations in appointment of guardian.—
(1) The court may appoint any person who is qualified to act as guardian, whether related to the ward or not. (2) The court shall give consideration to the appointment of:
(a) One of the next of kin of the incompetent who is a fit and proper person and qualified to act.
(b) Any person designated as guardian in any will in which the incompetent is a beneficiary.
(3) The court shall also:
(a) Consider the wishes expressed by the incompetent as to who shall be appointed guardian, and (b) Give weight to the appointment of an individual, or corporation as described in s. 744.102(11), nominated by the incompetent prior to the filing of the petition for a finding of incompetency, if at the time of nomination:
1. The incompetent was 18 or more years of age and had sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice, and
2. The nomination is contained in a writing signed by him in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses present at the same time....
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ahlman v. Wolf, 413 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…are entitled to consideration, Sec. 744.312(3)(a), but are far from controlling. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in the appointment of guardians made below. Comerford v. Cherry, 100 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1958); In re Guardianship of Quindt, 396 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); In re Guardianship of Davidson, 259 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); see, In re Castro, 344 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1978). Ahlman’s other claims present no error and call for no discussion…
-
Treloar v. Smith, 791 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…tute does not mandatorily require that such an appointment be made. To the contrary, the statute specifically provides that ‘(t)he court may appoint any person who is qualified ... whether related to the ward or not.’ ” In re Guardianship of Quindt, 396 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The record before us contains competent evidence to support the trial court’s decision to appoint a non-relative as Mrs. Smart’s guardian. On appeal, we will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless an abuse of discreti…
-
Goldsmith v. Huber, 429 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. In re Guardianship of Quindt, 396 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); § 744.-312(1), Fla.Stat. (1981).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Comerford v. Cherry, 100 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1958)
- In re the Matter of Deena Theresa Castro, 344 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- In re Guardianship of Theresa Davidson v. Robert A. Parker and wife Mary Sue Parker, 259 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)