WILLIAM GEORGE WATTS, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
MAGDALENE BOOTH WATTS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition to remove appellee as the guardian of three minor children. The record reflects that appellant is the paternal grandfather of the children, while appellee is the ex-wife of the children’s natural father. Testimony established that the children were living with appellee and their father at the time of his death. The children expressed to the trial judge a desire to continue living with appel-lee and her two children, and a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services “home study" ordered by the trial court was favorable to appellee. On this record, we do not see an abuse of discretion nor a failure to follow the law, and we affirm the lower court’s order. We note that whether a guardian is properly discharging his duties is always subject to review on appropriate petition.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Norwood-Norland Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 511 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ms. A covenant which is substantially ambiguous is resolved against the party claiming the right to enforce the restriction. Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901 (1925); Snider v. Grodetz, 442 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Barrett v. Leiher, 355 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In this case, the provisions for release of the restrictive covenant are susceptible to different interpretations. There was no evidence in the record as to the parties’ intentions in drafting the covenant, or compelling the int…
-
Barnett v. Destiny Owners Ass'n, Inc., 856 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…6 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla.1952). If the contract is ambiguous, the trial court should construe the contract and consider parol evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Berry v. Teves, 752 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As stated in Barrett v. Leiher, 355 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978): Florida adheres to the general rule that a reasonable, unambiguous restriction will be enforced according to the intent of the parties as expressed by the clear and ordinary meaning of its terms. If it is necessary to const…
-
Orange Gardens Civic Ass'n v. Harris, 382 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…s restricting the free use of real property are not favored, but where the restrictions are clear, reasonable and have a lawful purpose the covenants will be enforced. Hagan v. Sabal Palmes, Inc., 186 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Barrett v. Leiher, 355 So. 2d 222 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Heisler v. Marceau, 95 Fla. 135, 116 So. 447 (1928). Such restrictions are strictly construed in favor of the free and unrestricted use of land. Mundy v. Carter, 311 So. 2d 773 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Voight v. Harbour Heights Improve…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence