VERONICA TENZER
v.
GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER
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.
An order striking a party from a guardianship proceeding is a final order, and failure to timely appeal that order bars subsequent challenge to the party's removal.
[1] An order removing a party from a civil action is a final order appealable under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and failure to timely appeal such an order bars subs…
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 intelligenceVeronica Tenzer, as guardian of her son's property, appealed a November 2016 order approving a trust for her former husband. In September 2016, the ci…
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 Timely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant Veronica Tenzer, as natural parent and guardian of the property of her son, H.T., appeals a November 2016 final order approving a trust set up on behalf of her former husband. Appellant argues she was denied due process because she was not permitted to participate in the hearing seeking approval of the trust. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The record reflects that in September 2016, the circuit court entered an order striking Appellant from the trust proceeding because she was not an interested party. Appellant failed to timely appeal that order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h), (k) (2016). The September order striking Appellant as a party to the original trust proceeding was a final order because it removed Appellant from the action pertaining to the establishment of the trust. See, e.g., Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (en banc); Brogdon v. Guardianship of Brogdon, 553 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Appellant’s failure to appeal the September final order is a bar to any subsequent attempt to have us address whether she was an interested party to the original proceeding and, therefore, entitled to due process. Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal.
Dismissed. DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Superior Fence & Rail OF N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Brogdon v. Guardianship OF Clyde Finch Brogdon, 553 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Jose and Migdalia Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)