RICARDO R. CORONA, ET AL.
v.
IN RE: ORLANDO SILVA, ET AL.
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.
A guardianship court properly denies a motion to intervene under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230 when the movant fails to have the guardianship proceeding declared adversary, as civil procedure rules apply to guardianship proceedings only as expressly provided in the Florida Probate Rules.
[1] Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to guardianship proceedings only as expressly provided in the Florida Probate Rules, and a motion to intervene under Rule 1.230 is…
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 intelligence“In guardianship proceedings, the overwhelming public policy is the protection of the ward.”
Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006), cited for the principle that guardianship courts have primary responsibility to protect wards.
Corona sought to intervene in guardianship proceedings for Dr. Orlando Silva to challenge an earlier order declaring the Ward incompetent to testify a…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1985 Lower Tribunal No. 23-202-GD-02 ________________
Ricardo R. Corona, et al., Appellants,
vs.
In Re: Orlando Silva, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.
Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo Corona, Ricardo M. Corona and Nina Tarafa, for appellants.
Silva & Silva, P.A., and Paul Jon Layne, for appellees.
Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS, and LINDSEY, JJ.
SCALES, C.J.
2
Appellants Richard R. Corona and Corona Law Firm, P.A. (together “Corona”) moved, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, to intervene in the guardianship proceedings of Dr. Orlando Silva (the “Ward”). Corona’s objective was to have the guardianship court revisit an earlier order declaring the Ward incompetent to testify as a witness. Such a ruling, according to Corona, would allow Corona to depose the Ward in a separate defamation action pending in the circuit court’s civil division, brought against Corona by the Ward’s guardian. On October 31, 2024, the guardianship court summarily denied Corona’s intervention motion, and Corona timely appealed this final order.
We review a final order denying a motion to intervene for abuse of discretion. Merrick Park, LLC v. Garcia, 299 So. 3d 1096, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Corona sought to have the guardianship court cede to the trial court in the defamation case the guardianship court’s authority over the Ward’s welfare, specifically the issue of whether the Ward had capacity to be a witness in a legal proceeding. The guardianship court, however, has the primary responsibility and wide latitude to protect a ward. See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) (“In guardianship proceedings, the overwhelming public policy is the protection of the ward.”); Ash v. Ash, 332 So. 3d 563, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). The
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hayes v. Guardianship OF Mae E. Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2006)
- In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)