MILDRED E. MATHES, APPELLANT,
v.
JANET HUELSMAN, 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.
Mildred Mathes appeals a trial court's order finding her partially incapacitated and appointing a limited guardian. The appellate court reverses the incapacity finding because the examining committee concluded Mathes had full capacity, triggering a mandatory dismissal under Florida law, but affirms the denial of her request for costs against her daughter.
The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the petitions because section 744.331(4), Florida Statutes, requires dismissal when the examining committee concludes the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the bad faith cost assessment claim.
[1] A court must dismiss a petition to determine incapacity and appoint a guardian if the examining committee concludes the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated…
[2] A trial court's denial of a request to assess costs against a petitioner is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If the examining committee concludes that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated in any respect, the court shall dismiss the petition.”
Statutory language requiring mandatory dismissal when examining committee finds no incapacity; forms the basis for reversal of the incapacity order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanet Huelsman, Mathes' daughter, filed petitions to determine Mathes' incapacity and appoint a guardian. The trial court appointed a three-member exa…
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 Determination Of Incapacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mildred E. Mathes (“Mathes”) appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating her to be partially incapacitated and the order appointing a limited guardian. Mathes also appeals the trial court’s denial of her request to assess costs. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Janet Huelsman (“Huelsman”), Mathes’ daughter, filed a petition to determine Mathes’ incapacity and a petition to appoint a guardian for Mathes. Pursuant to section 744.331(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the trial court appointed the appropriate examining committee. After completing their evaluations, these three examiners each filed a report with the court. Two examiners found Mathes to have full capacity. The third examiner suggested that Mathes had limited capacity in the area of managing financial assets.
At the final hearing on the petitions, the third examiner amended his opinion after hearing other witnesses explain certain factual situations. The third examiner found that Mathes had full capacity. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge decided that Mathes lacked capacity to care for herself and to make decisions regarding her place of residence. The trial court entered an order finding limited incapacity and a separate order appointing a limited guardian.
Mathes argues that the trial court erred in entering these orders. She reasons that the trial court should have dismissed both petitions based on the examining committee members’ reports and testimony. In support of this argument, Mathes cites section 744.331(4) which reads, “If the examining committee concludes that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated in any respect, the court shall dismiss the petition.”
We agree that once the examining committee concluded that Mathes had full capacity, the trial court should have dismissed the petition to determine incapacity and the petition for appointment of a guardian. See In re Keene, 343 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Consequently, we need not address issues Mathes raises concerning the sufficiency of the evidence or the availability of less restrictive alternatives to a guardianship.
Mathes also appeals the trial court’s denial of her request to assess costs against Huelsman. Mathes argues that because Huelsman filed the petitions in bad faith, section 744.331(7) entitles her to costs. Although we reverse the trial court’s finding of limited incapacity, our review of the record suggests that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the bad faith claim.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. Levine, 4 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…s. Once a majority of the examining committee concluded that Mr. Levine was not incapacitated, the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition to determine incapacity and the petition for the appointment of a guardian. See Mathes v. Huelsman, 743 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding once examining committee concluded that alleged incapacitated person had full capacity, trial court was required to dismiss petition to determine incapacity); see also In re Keene, 343 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).…
-
Rothman v. Rothman, 93 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…tated, the court must dismiss the petition to determine incapacity.”); Levine v. Levine, 4 So. 3d 730, 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (rejecting a request for an evidentia-ry hearing to challenge the opinion of the examining committee); Mathes v. Huelsman, 743 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[OJnce the examining committee concluded that Mathes had full capacity, the trial court should have dismissed the petition to determine incapacity and the petition for appointment of a guardian.”). We have not overlooked t…
-
Faulkner v. Faulkner, 65 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ittee determines that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated, the court must dismiss the petition to determine incapacity. § 744.331(4), Fla. Stat.; see also Levine v. Levine, 4 So. 3d 730, 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Mathes v. Huelsman, 743 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Otherwise, the case proceeds to an adjudicatory hearing for the court to determine based on clear and convincing evidence whether the person is incapacitated. § 744.331(5)—(6), Fla. Stat. Section 744.331 provides for the pa…
Authorities Cited
- In re Keene, 343 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)