MARY MORGAN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RUTH TURGEON, RESPONDENT
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 held that the trial court erred by not following the statutory procedure for determining incapacity and instead improperly analogized to a different statute.
A limited guardian filed a petition to determine incapacity for her ward. The trial court failed to appoint an examining committee as required by stat…
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 Petition To Determine Incapacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mary Morgan (Petitioner), the limited guardian for her elderly aunt, Ruth Turgeon, filed a petition to determine incapacity seeking to have a plenary guardian appointed. Rather than appointing an examining committee within five days pursuant to section 744.331(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), the trial court treated the petition as a “suggestion of further incapacity of the ward” and proceeded to appoint one physician to examine the ward within twenty days, by analogy with section 744.464, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides for the restoration of one or more rights after an interested person files a suggestion of capacity. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to follow the dictates of section 744.331.1
We grant the petition. See § 744.369(8) (additional authority may not be granted to guardian without a hearing as provided for in section 744.331); Robert P. Scheb, Guardian of the Person: Duties, Responsibilities, and Liabilities, in Florida Guardianship PRACTICE (The Florida Bar 3d ed.1998) § 14.23 (“[I]f the guardian believes that action should be taken that requires that additional rights of the ward be removed, the entire procedure to determine incapacity (see F.S. 744.331) must be repeated. F.S. 744.369(8).”). However, we withhold issuance of the writ, trusting that the circuit court judge will appoint a three-member examining committee pursuant to section 744.331 forthwith.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Petitioner also sought other relief which this court has already either denied or dismissed by order, and which we believe requires no discussion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Molnar v. Maltz, 786 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…city. Section 744.331 requires that each member of the examining committee examine the alleged incapacitated person and submit a report to the court. We conclude that it was error to proceed without a three-member committee. Cf. Morgan v. Turgeon, 724 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also In re Estate of Eisenberg, 466 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court appoint a new committee and conduct another hearing on the petition for incapac…