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 hearing transcript, an appellant cannot meet the substantial burden required to challenge a trial court's guardianship termination order on appeal, and the trial court's ruling is presumed correct.
[1] A trial court's order determining whether to terminate a guardianship is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and such decisions are subject to a deferential standard of…
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.”
The court cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee to explain why an inadequate record prevents reversal of guardianship decisions.
Hardy Wallace appealed the trial court's termination of the guardianship of Milton Wallace's property. Hardy alleged that co-guardians Mark Wallace an…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) 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
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)