PURA MACEDA AND ELLEN BARBA, AS CUSTODIANS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, ANTHONY LONGO AND MICHAEL LONGO, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN DUHIG, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, ANTHONY LONGO AND MICHAEL LONGO, JOHN DUHIG, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ESTHER LONGO, DECEASED, AND JOHN LONGO, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guardian Of The Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the two appellants, Pura Maceda and Ellen Barba, as custodians and next friends of the two minor children of Esther Longo, deceased, and John Longo, her husband, had standing as interested parties to question the propriety of a settlement agreement which was entered into between John Duhig, as personal representative of the estate of Esther Longo and guardian of the property of the minor children, and Gladys Gerson and Don Cohen, holders of a mortgage encumbering the marital home of the Longos, and John Longo.
The trial court ruled that Mrs. Maceda, who was the maternal grandmother, and Mrs. Barba, the maternal great-aunt, did not have standing to contest the actions of the personal representative and property guardian. We agree and affirm.
While the grandmother and great-aunt who have custody of the minor children have an understandable interest in the mat ter, this does not constitute them interested persons for the purpose of participating in this litigation. Ash v. Coconut Grove Bank, 448 So. 2d 605, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); In Re Estate of Herman, 427 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolf Sanitary Wiping Cloth, Inc. v. Wolf, 526 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…s estate. The “jurisdiction over the person” adverted to in section 731.301(l)(d) extends to heirs and legatees who succeed to the property formerly owned by the decedent [*706] or as the term is employed in section 731.-301(1). See Maceda v. Duhig, 474 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (custodians of minor children have an interest in settlement agreement between personal representative and mortgage holder but are not interested persons for the purpose of participating in litigation); Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn…
-
Brogdon v. Guardianship OF Clyde Finch Brogdon, 553 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…t Daniel Brogdon lacked standing because his potential inheritance was merely speculative. It has been indicated that a family interest alone is an insufficient predicate for standing to contest a probate or guardianship action. See Maceda v. Duhig, 474 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). But in addition to a family interest Daniel Brogdon has also asserted a potential inheritance under the ward’s will. While this potential inheritance remains subject to divestment or challenge, in the context presented it does re…
-
Ursula Bachinger v. Sunbank/South Fla., N.A., 675 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…t Daniel Brogdon lacked standing because his potential inheritance was merely speculative. It has been indicated that a family interest alone is an insufficient predicate for standing to contest a probate or guardianship action. See Maceda v. Duhig, 474 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). But in addition to a family interest Daniel Brogdon has also asserted a potential inheritance under the ward’s will. While this potential inheritance remains subject to divestment or challenge, in the context presented it does re…
Authorities Cited
- Hyman ASH v. Coconut Grove Bank, 448 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- J.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- In re Est. OF Leo J. Herman, 427 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)