MABEL H. WADE, A SPINSTER,
v.
BESS WELLS JANNEY
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 reversed an order appointing a curator for Mabel H. Wade because the petition was filed by a next of kin residing outside the judicial circuit, violating statutory procedure that requires such petitions to be filed by the Sheriff when relatives reside outside the circuit.
The court lacked jurisdiction because statutory procedure was not followed. The statute permits relatives to file only if they reside in the same judicial circuit as the incapacitated person; when they do not, only the Sheriff of the county may invoke the court's jurisdiction.
“This Act sets up statutory procedure and is too elementary to require citation of authority that in such case the statute must be strictly followed, or else the proceedings will be of no avail.”
Establishes that curatorship statutes must be strictly followed or proceedings are void
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMabel H. Wade, a spinster, was the subject of a curatorship proceeding. A petition to appoint a curator was filed by an alleged next of kin whose resi…
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 Strict Compliance With Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
We are asked to review on this appeal ¿an order appointing a curator of the person and estate of Mabel H. Wade, a spinster.
The only authority for such proceedings is found in Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937, Section 1 of which Act is as follows :
“1. Whenever, hereafter, any person permanently or temporarily residing' in this State shall become *261physically incapacitated or feeble-minded or epileptic or so mentally or physically defective by reason of age, sickness, use of drugs, the excessive use of alcohol, or for other causes that he or she is unable to take care of his or her property, and in consequence, thereof, is liable to dissipate or lose the same, or to become the victim of designing persons, it shall be lawful for either the mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, child, next of kin, and in.ease there be no such relatives in the Judicial- Circuit where the person to be cared for resides, then the Sheriff of the County where the person to be cared for resides to present to a Judge of the Circuit Court sitting in Chancery, of the County in which said person to be cared for resides, his or her petition under oath, set-' ting forth the facts, naming all members of the family known to such petitioner, together with their addresses, if known, praying the Court to adjudge such person to be unable to take care of his or her property, and to appoint a curator for the estate of such person.”
This Act sets up statutory procedure and is too elementary to require citation of authority that in such case the statute must be strictly followed, or else the proceedings will be of no avail.
As is seen from the part of the Act quoted, supra, it provides:
“It shall be lawful for either the mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, child, next of kin, and in case there be no such relatives in the Judicial Circuit where the person to be cared for resides, then the Sheriff of the County where the person to be cared for resides to present to a Judge of the Circuit Court, sitting in chancery, of the county in which said person. *262to be cared for resides, his or her petition under oath
In the instant case the petition was filed'by the alleged next of kin, whose residence was shown by the petition to be “3036 63 Avt. SW., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.” which is not in the judicial Circuit where the person to be cared for resides.
It therefore follows that the jurisdiction of the Court could have been invoked in this behalf only by the Sheriff of Duval County.
Motion to dismiss the petition on the ground above stated was timely interposed and should have been granted.
Therefore, the order and decree appealed from is reversed with directions that the petition be dismissed.
So ordered.
WHITFIELD, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Raughley, 155 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1945)…therefore, is apparent that no petition was filed which complied with Sec. 746.01 Fla. Statutes 1941 (same F.S.A.) and the court was without jurisdiction to enter any order pursuant thereto, except an order denying the petition. See Wade v. Janney, 151 Fla. 260, 9 So. (2nd) 715. So, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that it be dismissed. CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ„ concur.…
-
ST. Gaudens v. Parry, 516 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ounty where the person for whose property a curator is sought resides. The statute is clear and the cases relied on by appellee for a different result are either inapposite or distinguishable. The statute is to be strictly construed. Wade v. Janney, 151 Fla. 260, 9 So. 2d 715 (1942); In re Raughley, 155 Fla. 723, 21 So. 2d 212 (1945). Our disposition of this issue renders the additional points raised by appellant moot. We reverse the order appealed and remand for appropriate disposition of other pending m…