M.A.T., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed juvenile's delinquency adjudication for burglary and grand theft but vacated the order imposing costs and restitution against his out-of-state aunt because she was not the legal guardian, was never served, and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction to impose costs, restitution, and other obligations against a third party who is not the legal guardian, has not been served with notice, and does not reside in the state.
[1] A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction to impose costs and restitution obligations against a third party who is not the legal guardian, has not been served with notice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.A.T. was adjudicated delinquent for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. At the time of adjudication and the offense, M.A.T. was in the custody o…
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 Third-Party Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
M.A.T. appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft.
We affirm without further discussion the adjudication and order of probation.
However, on our own motion, we strike the “Order as to Parent(s)/Legal Guardian for Legal Services and Costs, Restitution, Community Service, Counseling and Drug Court.” This order was imposed against M.A.T.’s aunt.
The record reveals, however, that at the time of adjudication and on the date of the offense, M.A.T. was in the custody of his grandmother, who was his “legal guardian.” Thus there was no basis to impose these costs against the aunt. See § 985.2311, Fla. Stat. (2004). More important, the aunt resided out of state. She was never served with notice of these proceedings or otherwise made a party or participant in this action.1 The trial court had no personal jurisdiction over the aunt. We therefore remand with directions to vacate this order. Adjudication affirmed; order on costs against third party remanded with instructions to vacate order. CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. .
We note that counsel for M.A.T. filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in this case. We requested a merits brief regarding this cost order. Counsel noted that she did not represent the aunt, nor could she represent the aunt in her capacity as an assistant public defender appointed to represent M.A.T. This is further evidence that the aunt’s interests were not represented in this proceeding, despite the entry of a significant judgment against her.