IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF DOROTHY MAYFIELD CRAWFORD, INCOMPETENT. DAVID A. MAYFIELD, JR., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, AS SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY, AND MARILYN M. CLARKE, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion challenging the inventory, holding that a guardian need not account for asset discrepancies that arose before his appointment.
A guardian of property need not account for discrepancies in the ward's assets that arose before the guardian's appointment.
[1] A guardian of property is not required to account for discrepancies in the ward's assets that arose before the guardian's appointment.
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 intelligenceDavid Mayfield was appointed guardian of Dorothy Crawford's property on May 7, 1982. A $20,200 discrepancy in Crawford's assets existed before Mayfiel…
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 Power Of Attorney cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order removing appellant Mayfield as guardian of Crawford’s property. The appeal was dismissed by order of this court dated November 5, 1984, because Mayfield failed to purge himself of contempt of the court below. The cross appeal remains, challenging the ruling that Mayfield need not account for a $20,200 discrepancy in the ward’s (Crawford’s) assets.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion challenging the inventory, which is based on the determination that Mayfield need not account for the $20,200 discrepancy in the ward’s assets which arose before Mayfield was appointed guardian of the property. There was no discrepancy in the inventory during the guardianship.
We do not have before us at this time the issue of whether there was a breach of a fiduciary duty while Mayfield held a power of attorney.1
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SHIVERS, and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The notice of appeal is directed to the order of the trial court rendered October 31, 1983, which order is limited as follows:
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on August 30, 1983 and on September 23, 1983 on the Petition for Removal of Guardian of the Property, the Amended Inventory and Accounting from May 7, 1982 [date Mayfield was appointed guardian of the property and beginning date for the challenged inventory and accounting] through August 25, 1982 with the Objections to Inventories of David A. May-field, Jr., Guardian of the Property_
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jaffe v. Hardy M. Snow, Jr., 610 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…e trial court in the cause appealed from is not entitled to maintain the appeal until he has purged himself of the contempt. Pasin v. Pasin, 517 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1988); In re Guardianship of Crawford, 470 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Durham v. Durham, 297 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Morris v. Rabara, 145 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). As the court in Morris noted, “it is contrary to the principles of justice to permit one who has flaunted the orders of t…