IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF EDNA MAE LAWRENCE, INCOMPETENT. EDNA MAE LAWRENCE, APPELLANT,
v.
HUBERT K. NORRIS, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1990-06-25
No. 89-2262
ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
563 So. 2d 195 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

A guardianship court awarded compensation to a guardian despite finding that he breached his fiduciary duties toward his incompetent mother and mismanaged nearly $4,000 of her estate. The appellate court reversed, holding that a guardian who breaches fiduciary duty cannot be compensated and must repay mismanaged funds with interest.


Holding

A guardian who breaches his fiduciary duty cannot be compensated for his services. The trial court abused its discretion by entertaining the issue of compensation after finding that the guardian violated his fiduciary duties. The guardian or his surety must repay all mismanaged funds with interest.


Headnotes

[1] A guardian who breaches fiduciary duties is not entitled to compensation for services rendered to the guardianship estate.

[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding compensation to a guardian found to have breached fiduciary duties.

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

Key Quotes

“In Florida, the state is under a special duty to protect incompetent persons and their property as a class incapable of protecting themselves.”

Establishes the foundational public policy underlying guardianship law that justifies strict enforcement of fiduciary duties.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Edna Mae Lawrence was involuntarily committed to a state hospital in 1986 due to mental illness. Her son, Hubert Norris, was appointed guardian of her…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MINER, Judge.

MINER, Judge.

In September of 1986, Edna Mae Lawrence was disabled by a major mental illness and involuntarily committed to the Florida State Hospital (FSH). The following month, her son, Hubert Norris, petitioned to have his mother declared incompetent and to have himself appointed guardian of her person and property which property consisted primarily of funds from her deceased husband’s estate, her social security and her state retirement benefits. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order finding Mrs. Lawrence incompetent to manage her affairs and appointing Hubert her guardian conditioned upon his posting of a $3,000 surety bond.

Hubert’s failure to cooperate with a FSH case worker seeking placement alternatives for Mrs. Lawrence led the case worker to seek appointment as a Visitor to the guardianship.1 In lieu of making such an appointment, the trial court directed Hubert to provide an inventory of the guardianship estate and an accounting of his stewardship. After he twice failed to comply with court orders, the court appointed the case worker as Visitor to conduct an inquiry into the handling of guardianship assets.

Finding that almost $4,000 of the guardianship estate could not be accounted for and that only $1,600 in assets remained, the Visitor petitioned the court for Hubert’s removal as guardian, the appointment of a substitute guardian and repayment of all sums improperly expended or unaccounted for. After a hearing on the petition, the court adopted the findings of the Visitor that Hubert, had breached his fiduciary duties and entered an order which, among other things, removed Hubert as guardian of his mother’s property because of “ill health”, awarded him a monthly fee of $125 for services rendered to the guardianship without taking any testimony concerning the time expended or the reasonable value of such services and offset the fee allowed ($4,000) against the unaccounted for funds, leaving a balance due Hubert from the estate of some $70. From the denial of a motion for rehearing filed in her behalf by Mrs. Lawrence’s attorney ad litem, Mr. Basford, this appeal was taken.

We reverse.

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) awarding compensation to a guardian who breached his fiduciary duty; (2) offsetting unaccounted funds against compensation awarded; (3) awarding fees without competent substantial evidence to support the award; and (4) failing to hold the guardian and/or his surety liable for the funds unaccounted for. Although we find merit in appellant’s arguments as to each point, we need only address the first point raised which we believe is dispositive of the remaining issues. In Florida, the state is under a special duty to protect incompetent persons and their property as a class incapable of protecting themselves. Allen v. City of St. Augustine, 500 So. 2d 206, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1987).

The guardian in the instant case was found to have violated his fiduciary duty as guardian. His claim to compensation cannot be entertained by the court in view of its finding that he had breached his fiduciary duty. See Carroll v. Carroll, 127 Fla. 226, 172 So. 916, 918 (1937); American Surety Co. of New York v. Hayden, 112 Fla. 17, 150 So. 114, 121 (1933).

The court’s acceptance of the Visitor’s initial report finding that appellee breached his fiduciary duties as appellant’s guardian is supported by competent substantial evidence and, thus, the trial court abused its discretion by entertaining the issue of his compensation. On remand, we direct that the trial court order the guardian, or alternatively the surety, to repay the funds mismanaged by the guardian, with interest. See section 744.377, Florida Statutes (1987); In re Nusbaum’s Guardianship, 154 Fla. 49, 16 So. 2d 519 (1944).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . This petition was filed pursuant to sections 744.107 and 744.434, Florida Statutes.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • SUN Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jones, 645 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
    …“home plan” should be held.6 Courts must scrupulously oversee the handling of the affairs of incompetent persons under their jurisdiction and err on the side of over-supervising rather than indifference. See In re Guardianship of Lawrence v. Norris, 563 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Allen v. City of St. Augustine, 500 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1987). The facts in this case distinguish it from McGinnis v. Kanevsky, 564 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).7 In McGinnis, fees…
    1 / 3
  • Sugarman v. Galbut, 666 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
    …ment by the guardian is to make whole the ward’s estate, and it is prompted by the ever present zeal of the courts to protect those who are unable by affliction to fend for themselves. Id., 16 So. 2d at 521; see also In re Guardianship of Lawrence, 563 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (where guardian found to have breached fiduciary duties, his claim for compensation may not be entertained by court and he and/or surety liable for mismanaged funds with interest); 28 Fla.Jur.2d Guardian and Ward § 83 (1981). We…
  • Waldon v. In re Guardianship of Charles Waldon, 305 So. 3d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
    …he facts are viewed in favor of sustaining the appointment, we must not disturb such findings where, as here, they are supported by the record. See Manassa v. Manassa, 738 So. 2d 997, 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also In re Guardianship of Lawrence, 563 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (affirming lower court’s acceptance of report alleging guardian’s breach of fiduciary duty only because supported by other competent, substantial evidence). P.A. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami, 453 So. 2d 441, 443-44 (Fla. 3d…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw