Opinion ID: 1751413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case Law Addressing Standing in Guardianship Proceedings

Text: In McGinnis, the issue was whether relatives of a deceased ward had standing as heirs of the ward's estate to challenge awards of guardian's fees that had previously been approved by the court under section 744.108 on the ground that the fees were excessive. See 564 So.2d at 1142. The Third District held that guardianship fees, properly authorized by the probate court, may not be set aside after the ward's death merely because his heirs consider that the awards were too high. Id. McGinnis construed a version of section 744.108 that provided: A guardian of the person or of the property shall receive a reasonable fee for his services to be fixed by the court after such notice as the court shall require. Id. at 1143 n. 7 (quoting § 744.108, Fla. Stat. (1981)). Based on this language, the Third District explained why the heirs of the ward's estate were not entitled to notice: The lack of any requirement for further notice reflects the idea that, in the case of a guardianship, the ward and his estate are the only interested parties. Insofar as these interests may be contrary to those of the guardian seeking fees, they are represented and safeguarded by the probate court itself. Id. The Third District noted that even under the new and far broader guardianship law enacted in 1989, heirs of a ward's estate are not within the class of persons cognizably interested in the guardianship estate because the statute provides notice to only the ward, guardian, and attorney. Id. The Third District also rejected the argument that the heirs were entitled to revisit the issue of guardianship fees under section 744.424(2), Florida Statutes (1987), which provided for objections to attorney's fees and guardianship expenses sought in annual and final returns unless previously allowed. McGinnis, 564 So.2d at 1143 & n. 8. The Court reached the same conclusion about Florida Rule of Probate and Guardianship Procedure 5.700(a) (1977), id. at 1143-44, which provided for objections to annual financial returns by a person interested as creditor, or otherwise. Id. at 1144 (quoting rule 5.700(a) (1977)). [6] Because the heirs of the ward's estate were not entitled to notice under section 744.108 and were not authorized to file objections under section 744.424 or rule 5.700(a), the Third District ruled in McGinnis that the heirs lacked standing to challenge the previously awarded guardian's fees. 564 So.2d at 1144-45. Finally, the Third District observed that in guardianship proceedings, the court is concerned only with the welfare of the ward himself in the administration of what are, after all, only his funds. Id. at 1144. Heirs of a ward's estate are only contingent or potential beneficiaries who cannot complain that any expenditures on behalf of the ward have diminished what they may eventually receive and thus are not interested parties in the administration of the guardianship. Id. The Third District expressed concern that allowing heirs standing to challenge an award of guardian's fees was akin to allowing heirs or devisees standing to challenge the supposedly excessive spending habits of a competent person during his lifetime or to seek a pre- or post-mortem determination of the appropriate expenditures of the assets from the guardianship, which is not the law. Id. at 1144 n. 9. Bachinger, the conflict case, also involved whether heirs of a deceased ward had standing to participate in a guardianship proceeding. However, unlike the proceedings in McGinnis and Hayes, which involved guardian's and attorney's fees, respectively, Bachinger involved a proceeding on a petition for final discharge. See Bachinger, 675 So.2d at 186. The Third District in Hayes did not acknowledge that Bachinger involved a different proceeding when it certified conflict, but this distinction is significant. When a guardian petitions for final discharge, the guardian must file a final report with the court, and the court shall approve the report [i]f no objections are filed and if it appears that the guardian has made full and complete distribution to the person entitled and has otherwise faithfully discharged his or her duties. If objections are filed, the court shall conduct a hearing in the same manner as provided for a hearing on objections to annual guardianship reports. § 744.527(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). In determining whether the heirs had standing to object to the petition for final discharge, the Fourth District looked to Florida Probate Rule 5.700(a), which provides that the ward, or any other interested person, may file an objection to any part of a guardianship report within the time provided by law. See Bachinger, 675 So.2d at 187. Relying on the language of rule 5.700(a), which allows an interested person to file an objection to any part of a guardianship report, the Fourth District determined that the heirs had standing to object to the petition for final discharge because they alleged that, in addition to being heirs, they were relatives and were taking care of [the] decedent before she was declared incompetent. Bachinger, 675 So.2d at 188. The Fourth District stated that [i]f they do not have a sufficient interest to question how [the ward's] funds were spent, there is probably no one who does. Id. The Fourth District considered the concerns expressed by the Third District in McGinnis about allowing heirs to object to funds being spent on the ward, but was not persuaded that it follows that they should have no standing. Id. at 187. The Fourth District explained that it is not sufficient to rely on the court and the guardian to scrutinize expenditures made on behalf of the ward because, due to the ex parte nature of these types of proceedings, it is highly unrealistic to assume that they would involve any high level of scrutiny. Id. Quoting Judge Sharp's observation in Sun Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones, 645 So.2d 1008, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the Fourth District added that [c]ourts must scrupulously oversee the handling of the affairs of incompetent persons under their jurisdiction and err on the side of over-supervising rather than indifference. Bachinger, 675 So.2d at 188. In Jones, on which the Fourth District relied, the Fifth District also considered both the applicable statutory law and the guardianship rules in deciding whether personal representatives of a deceased ward's estate had standing to object to a petition for final discharge and a petition for guardian's and attorney's fees. In that case, the guardian and the guardian's attorney sought fees for services performed on the ward's behalf that included substantial sums related to a home plan. Jones, 645 So.2d at 1013. The ward's daughter-in-law, in her capacity as personal representative of the ward's estate, objected to the fees and asserted that they should not be awarded for services rendered in carrying out the home plan because the home plan was neither feasible nor in the best interest of the ward. See id. Sun Bank, which was the personal representative under a superseding will, [7] also objected to the fees and maintained that the home plan was excessive and unauthorized, created a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward, and was not in the ward's best interest. See id. at 1014. The trial court refused to consider the merits of these objections, citing McGinnis as authority. See id. On appeal, the Fifth District reversed and ruled that review of the personal representatives' objections to the home plan should not have been foreclosed and that Sun Bank was a proper party to raise these objections. See id. at 1017. The Fifth District observed that notice was not provided to the personal representatives as required by the applicable statute and rule of procedure. See id. Specifically, the Fifth District cited section 744.447(2), which requires that notice of a petition to perform any act that constitutes a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward be given to the ward, next of kin, if any, and to those interested persons who have filed requests for notices . . . as provided in the Florida Probate Rules. See Jones, 645 So.2d at 1017. The court also cited Florida Probate Rule 5.630(b), which requires that notice of a petition to perform an act requiring court approval be provided to the ward, next of kin, and those persons who have filed requests for notices. See Jones, 645 So.2d at 1017. [8] Because these notice requirements had not been followed and because the trial court had conducted most of the proceedings ex parte, the Fifth District concluded that a full hearing on the objections should be held. See 645 So.2d at 1017. The Fifth District distinguished McGinnis because the thrust of the objections [in Jones ] is not excessiveness [of the fees sought] but a direct conflict of interest between guardian and ward. Id. The court concluded that [c]learly, only a person other than the guardian can protect the ward's interests in such a case. Id.