ROBERT R. RIPOLL AND ALINA RIPOLL, AS SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL CARE SERVICES, INC., AS SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY, 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.
In a guardianship dispute, the trial court froze the assets of Alina Ripoll, successor guardian of an incapacitated ward, after she violated a court order by mortgaging a home purchased with ward funds and then invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid disclosing the mortgage proceeds. The appellate court affirmed the asset freeze, holding that the trial court acted within its inherent authority to preserve guardianship assets.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. A circuit court has inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and preserve assets for the beneficiaries, including the authority to issue temporary injunctions freezing assets claimed to belong to the guardianship.
[1] A circuit court possesses inherent authority to oversee a guardianship and implement necessary measures to safeguard assets for the beneficiaries.
[2] A court has the authority to issue temporary injunctions freezing assets claimed by a guardianship, even when the ultimate ownership of those assets is contested.
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“A circuit court has the inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and to take action it deems necessary to preserve the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries.”
Establishes the foundational authority for the trial court's actions in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlina Ripoll was the successor guardian of the person for incapacitated ward Caridad Asensio, while Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. was gua…
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 Standard Of Review On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from an adversary action in a guardianship proceeding brought by the appellee Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. (“CPCS”) to remove the appellant/guardian, Alina Ripoll.1 Ripoll is the successor guardian of the incapacitated ward, Caridad Asensio. CPCS is the guardian of Asensio’s assets.
It is alleged that Ripoll improperly took money from the guardianship to purchase a home for her personal use. In an attempt to protect the ward’s assets, the trial court ordered Ripoll in the presence of her husband, not to mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber this home in any way. Two days later, the Ripolls executed a mortgage on the home.
CPCS moved to remove Ripoll as guardian for violating the court’s order. The court directed the parties to attend a hearing on the matter, and ordered Ripoll to bring any and all documentation she had which would reflect the location of the proceeds from the mortgage. Ripoll appeared before the court on the directed day, invoked a Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to produce any documents or answer any questions about the mortgage. As a result, the trial court froze all of the Ripolls’ assets. They instituted this appeal. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and affirm the order under review.
A circuit court has the inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and to take action it deems necessary to preserve the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries. See In re: Estate of Barsanti, 773 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). To that end, the court:
has the authority to issue temporary injunctions freezing assets claimed to belong to [a guardianship], even though ultimate ownership of those assets may be in dispute. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Barsanti, 773 So. 2d at 1208. Because we find that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion appellate court will not disturb trial court’s decision in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunction).
Affirmed.
. Robert R. Ripoll, the guardian's husband, is also an appellant in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Brian v. State, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Sanchez v. Abner Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- In re Est. OF Giorgio Barsanti v. Wayne A. Cypen Ad Litem of the Estate of Giorgio Barsanti, 773 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)