HARDY WALLACE, ETC.
v.
MARK WALLACE, ETC., ET AL.
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.
Without a transcript of the trial court hearing, an appellant challenging a guardianship termination fails to meet the substantial burden required to overcome the presumption that the trial court's ruling is correct.
[1] A trial court's order determining whether to terminate a guardianship is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and in the absence of a hearing transcript, the appellate co…
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 intelligence“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”
Standard for appellate review when hearing transcript is absent, cited from Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
Hardy Wallace appealed the termination of the guardianship of the property of Milton Wallace, arguing that co-guardians Mark Wallace and Angel Insua m…
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 De Novo Review Of Legal Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 6, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Nos. 3D25-0545 & 25-0546
Lower Tribunal Nos. 24-3357-GD-02 & 20-1603-GD-02
Hardy Wallace, etc.,
Appellant,
VS.
Mark Wallace, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.
Schlesinger Law Group, and Michael J. Schlesinger, for appellant. Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Glen H. Waldman, for appellees. Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR JJ.
GORDO, J.
Hardy Wallace (“Hardy”) appeals the termination of the guardianship of the property of Milton Wallace—the ward-pursuant to Rule 5.680, Florida Probate Rules. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.170. Hardy argues Mark Wallace and Angel Insua¹ misrepresented that the guardianship had no assets and the trial court prematurely and improperly discharged the guardians and terminated the guardianship of the property. The trial court held a full hearing on this matter and made findings. But Hardy provides no transcript of the hearing.
This Court has consistently applied a deferential standard to guardianship decisions and the substantial burden placed on parties challenging such orders, while applying a de novo standard to issues of law. Waldon v. Waldon, 305 So. 3d 634, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Ash v. Ash, 332 So. 3d 563, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). A trial court's order determining whether to terminate a guardianship is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Walpole, 639 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Applying the deferential standard to guardianship decisions and the substantial burden placed on parties challenging such, we must presume the trial court's ruling is correct in the absence of the hearing transcript. See
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardy Wallace v. Wallace (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
Ash v. Hyman Ash (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
Hardy Wallace v. Wallace (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- State v. In the Interest of M.J., 627 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- In re Guardianship OF Brian David Walpole v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 639 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State v. Munoz, 717 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Hardy Wallace v. Wallace (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)