Case Name: Mary Louise BARNES, Appellant, v. In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Mary Louise BARNES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-04-06
Citations: 898 So. 2d 1185
Docket Number: No. 3D04-1934
Parties: Mary Louise BARNES, Appellant, v. In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Mary Louise BARNES, Appellee.
Judges: Before FLETCHER and CORTINAS, JJ. and-SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 898
Pages: 1185–1186

Head Matter:
Mary Louise BARNES, Appellant, v. In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Mary Louise BARNES, Appellee.
No. 3D04-1934.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 6, 2005.
Navon & Lavin and Andrew T. Lavin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before FLETCHER and CORTINAS, JJ. and-SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Although the Court has jurisdiction to review the probate order on appeal, see Delgado v. Estate of Garriga, 870 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Am. Red Cross v. Estate of Haynsworth, 708 So.2d 602, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(adjudication of incompetency creates prima facie case against proponent of later-executed instrument rebuttable by sufficient showing of execution during "lucid interval"); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 96 (2004)(failure to assert contention in trial court precludes consideration on appeal).
Affirmed.