DR. J. W. TURNER AND AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK
v.
WILLIAM E. ANDREWS, NON COMPOS MENTIS, BY N. D. WAINWRIGHT, JR., AS GUARDIAN
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court order denying a motion to dismiss in a guardianship accountability case, holding that a ward's surety bond company has sufficient equity to pursue an accounting against a guardian who allegedly failed to file proper accounts and whose resignation resulted in approximately $20,000 of the ward's property being in the guardian's possession.
The court held that the amended bill of complaint contains sufficient equity and the lower court properly overruled the defendants' motions to dismiss, as courts have a duty to protect infants and incompetents as wards of the court, and a surety bond company has standing to seek an accounting when a guardian has failed in accounting duties.
“Courts are charged under the law with the duty and obligation of caring for infants and incompetents upon the theory that they are wards of the court.”
Establishes the legal basis for court jurisdiction and the duty to ensure proper guardianship accounting, supporting the surety company's standing to seek an accounting.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam E. Andrews was declared non compos mentis, and Dr. J. W. Turner was appointed his guardian on January 23, 1939, posting a $12,000 bond. The gu…
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.
This case comes to this Court on petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 19, 1939, the lower court made and entered an order overruling and denying motions of the defendants to dismiss an amended bill of complaint, and the said order, it is contended in this Court, is erroneous.
The amended bill of complaint alleged that William E. Andrews was non compos mentis and on January 23, 1939, Dr. J. W. Turner was appointed guardian for the person and estate of the incompetent and gave bond in the sum of $12,000.00 and the conditions of the bond are fully set forth *89in the amended bill of complaint. On June 1, 1929, the guardian had in his possession $6,511.61, property of his ward, and shortly thereafter received the further sum of $1,200.42, making a total of $7,712.03 in the possession of the guardian on June 1, 1930, property of the ward. It is alleged that additional sums came into possession of the guardian until July 7, 1936, when the sum of approximately $20,000.00, property of the ward, was in possession of the guardian when he resigned the guardianship.
It is also alleged that the guardian failed and omitted to file as required by law a full and accurate account or accounts covering his acts and doings as guardian of the said ward from and after August 17, 1933, and that the reports of accounts filed prior thereto were irregular, illegal and not in conformity with the law, and on September 20, 1937, the County Judge of Levy County by order attempted to approve and confirm the alleged unlawful reports which did not reflect a true and correct accounting of the moneys of the ward going into the possession of the guardian, and the terms of the purported order were to release and discharge the bondsmen of the guardian and to discharge each of them from any and all liability as bondsmen, to the detriment and injury of the non compos mentis ward. The prayer of the amended bill is for an accounting.
The motion to dismiss contains a ground that there is no equity in the amended bill of complaint. We think the amended bill contains equity and there was no error committed on the part of the lower court in entering an order overruling and denying the motions of the defendants to dismiss. See Pitts v. Pitts, 120 Fla. 363, 162 So. 708; Firmin v. Sanborn, 119 Fla. 396, 161 So. 555. Courts are charged under the law with the duty and obligation of caring for infants and incompetents upon the theory that they are wards of the court.
*90The petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby quashed and the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, P. J., Brown and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., dissents.
(dissenting). — This is a collateral attack in the circuit court upon an order of the County Judge of Levy County on September 20, 1937, on final accounting of Dr. J. W. Turner, guardian, at which time the accounting was validated and confirmed; Dr. Turner absolved from any liability for the estate; the surety bond dissolved and the sureties exonerated of all liability thereunder.
On the authority of Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, and Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515, 173 So. 683, the judgment of the circuit court entered after denial of petitioner’s motions to dismiss should be reversed.
Buford, J.
(dissenting). — This is a collateral attack in the circuit court upon an order of the County Judge of Levy County on September 20, 1937, on final accounting of Dr. J. W. Turner, guardian, at which time the accounting was validated and confirmed; Dr. Turner absolved from any liability for the estate; the surety bond dissolved and the sureties exonerated of all liability thereunder. On the authority of Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, and Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515, 173 So. 683, the judgment of the circuit court entered after denial of petitioner’s motions to dismiss should be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guinta v. RE, 159 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1947)…ttle if any influence in formulating the controlling rule in this State. In this jurisdiction, courts of equity are charged with the duty of protecting infants and incompetents, under the theory that they are wards of the Court. Turner vs. Andrews, 143 Fla. 88, 196 So. 449. Courts of equity have inherent jurisdiction to control and protect infants and their property. In England this was one of their most distinctive duties and [*452] is not impaired by statutory provisions. Duke v. Duke, 109 Fla. 325, 147…
-
Bambrick v. Bambrick, 165 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…. Bogue, 1940, 142 Fla. 787, 196 So. 306. A court of equity may, upon allegations of fraud, compel an accounting — even though the accounts have been approved by the County Judge’s Court and the guardian has been discharged. Turner v. Andrews, 1940, 143 Fla. 88, 196 So. 449; Beck v. Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 45; In re Nusbaum’s Guardianship, 1943, 152 Fla. 31, 10 So. 2d 661; American Surety Co. of New York v. Andrews, 1943, 152 Fla. 638, 12 So. 2d 599; Krivitsky v. Nye…
-
Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York v. Andrews, 152 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1943)…The answer to this contention is our previous ruling in the cause when the suit was before us on legal sufficiency of [*644] the bill of complaint and a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds, inclusive of the want of equity. See Turner v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 88, 196 So. 449. A second petition for an interlocutory writ of certiorari was denied by this Court on January 9, 1942. An attack collaterally was made by bill in equity on the orders of the county judge approving the correctness of a guardian’s accou…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitts v. Pitts, 120 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1935)
- Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1910)
- Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1937)
- In re the Guardianship of Robert Ellsworth Firmin v. Sanborn, 119 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1935)