GLADYS EHRLICH, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN SEVERSON, M.D., FRANCIS X. CROSBY, PSY.D. AND ROD SIDWAY, 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.
The court held that the procedural statute for determining incapacity does not make a potential ward responsible for examining committee fees when the guardianship petition is dismissed or denied.
Gladys Ehrlich was the subject of a guardianship petition that was denied. She was subsequently ordered to pay the fees of the examining committee.…
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 Guardianship Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Gladys Ehrlich was the subject of a guardianship petition which was denied. She appeals an order which requires her to pay the fees of the examining committee.
Although we acknowledge that payment of the examining committee’s fees should not be contingent on the outcome of the competency determination, we agree with appellant that the procedural statute for determining incapacity does not make the potential ward responsible for examining committee fees where the guardianship petition is dismissed or denied. See § 744.331(7), Fla. Stat. (2007).1
Reversed.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur. . We note that the subject statute formerly provided for examining committee fees to be paid from "the general fund of the county in which the petition was filed.” § 744.331(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, the 1996 amendment to the statute appears to have eliminated the county's liability except in cases where the ward is indigent. This leaves a gap in responsibility for payment of the fees where a good faith petition is denied or dismissed. The Legislature needs to specify who pays the examining committees fees in this circumstance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. Levine, 4 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…en filed in bad faith. The court made no such finding here. We recognize that the statute has a gap in determining responsibility for payment of the examining committee fees when a good faith petition is denied or dismissed. See Ehrlich v. Severson, 985 So. 2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). As did the Ehrlich court, we urge the Legislature to specify who pays the examining committee fees in this circumstance. For these reasons, the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for a determination of incapa…
-
Faulkner v. Faulkner, 65 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…incapacitated person to pay the examining committee’s fees because “the procedural statute for determining incapacity does not make the potential ward responsible for examining committee fees where the guardianship petition is dismissed or denied.” 985 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing section 744.331(7), Fla. Stat.). The court noted that there was a “gap” in section 744.331(7) where a good faith petition is denied or dismissed, and it urged the Legislature to amend the statute to specify who pays…
-
In re Guardianship OF Mary W. Klatthaar. Marion Yazdzik v. Scott, 129 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…Allen, 10 So. 3d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that where the petition for incapacity is dismissed, “any award of fees incurred by counsel appointed to represent the subject must come, if at all, from the petitioner”); Ehrlich v. Severson, 985 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“[TJhe procedural statute for determining incapacity does not make the potential ward responsible for examining committee fees where the guardianship petition is dismissed or denied.”). The circuit court did not find that t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence