RITA JANNIS, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK TANNER AND SHEILA F. WYLE, APPELLEES
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.
Rita Jannis appealed a judgment in a guardianship estate dispute involving her incapacitated mother, Betty Wyle Tanner. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, having failed to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the incompetent ward despite conflicting interests between the guardian and the ward's children.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment because it failed to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the incompetent ward as mandatorily required by statute when the guardian's interests are adverse to the ward's interests, and the ward was not otherwise provided an appearance at trial.
[1] A guardianship estate is an indispensable party to proceedings concerning claims against it and the disposition of the ward's property.
[2] A court lacks jurisdiction to render a judgment concerning a ward's property when the ward is not represented by a guardian ad litem or otherwise provided for appearance.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is axiomatic that the guardianship estate, in common with any party whose interests are directly affected by a judicial determination, is an indispensable party to a proceeding like the one below which concerns claims against it and the disposition of the ward's property.”
Establishes that the guardianship estate must be represented as an indispensable party in proceedings affecting ward's property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetty Wyle Tanner was adjudicated incompetent due to Alzheimer's disease and resided in a Miami Beach nursing home. Her second husband was 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 Guardian Ad Litem cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
While Betty Wyle Tanner, long since adjudicated incompetent because of the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease, lay totally incapacitated in a Miami Beach nursing home, her second husband, who was the appointed guardian of her person,1 and her two adult children were fighting over her assets in the Dade County Circuit Court. This is an appeal by one daughter from a judgment resolving various claims in favor of the husband, supported by the other daughter. We vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
It is axiomatic that the guardianship estate, in common with any party whose interests are directly affected by a judicial determination, is an indispensable party to a proceeding like the one below which concerns claims against it and the disposition of the ward’s property. Community Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wright, 452 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); National Title Ins. Co. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc., 377 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), dismissed, 385 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1980); Florida Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Blake, 155 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In this case, however, as is graphically shown by the fact that even the style of this appeal does not include the guardianship, Mrs. Tanner was not herself represented. The trial court did not either appoint a guardian ad
litem as is mandatorily required by section 744.391, Florida Statutes (1987)
; Florida Power & Light Co. v. Macias, 507 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review dismissed, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1987), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1987); see Drury v. Harding, 461 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1984), or otherwise provide for the appearance of the ward at the trial below. Hence, it was without jurisdiction to render the purported judgment before us. Martinez v. Balbin, 76 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1954); Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla.1956) (en banc); Davan-zo v. Resolute Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fulmer v. Northern Cent. Bank, 386 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). For this reason, the “order” on appeal is vacated and the cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings.3
VACATED, REMANDED.
.While we are formally without jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the proceedings below, it is not inappropriate to observe that many of the issues raised by the appellant appear to present substantial merit.
. Barnett Bank was appointed as guardian of the property but was not authorized to and did not participate in any way in the pertinent proceedings below.
. This provision provides in part:
744.391 Actions by and against guardian or ward. — If an action is brought by the guardian against the ward, or vice versa, or if the interest of the guardian is adverse to that of his ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward in that particular litigation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re The Guardianship OF Betty Wyle Tanner v. Jannis, 564 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…property. On appeal, this court vacated and remanded that order on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claims without the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the guardianship estate. See Jannis v. Tanner, 533 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). On remand, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem. After a status conference, the trial court entered an order on status conference on June 5, 1989, setting forth five issues that were ripe for adjudication. Thereafter, t…
-
Glatthar v. Hoequist, 600 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…hich a conflict of interest may occur); and § 744.446(1) ("[i]t is essential to the proper conduct and management of a guardianship that the guardian be independent and impartial"). . §§ 744.474(11); 744.391, Fla.Stat. (1991). See Jannis v. Tanner, 533 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). . That section provides: The court may, upon inquiry from any interested person or upon its own motion in any proceeding over which it has jurisdiction, appoint a monitor. The monitor may investigate, seek information, examine…
Authorities Cited
- Mason W. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1956)
- Martinez v. Balbin, 76 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1954)
- Arcaute v. State, 507 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Gen. Builders Corp. OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. Sisk, 461 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1984)
- Fulmer v. N. Cent. Bank, 386 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Vito Davanzo v. Resolute Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of the Palm Beaches v. Wright, 452 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- The Fla. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. AT Miami v. Blake, 155 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc., 377 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)