Court Opinion

ID: 9889761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 15:04:53.835299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.159594
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                        Opinion filed October 11, 2023.

                              ________________

                        Nos. 3D23-0837 & 3D23-0838 1
                     Lower Tribunal Nos. 22-55-P & 22-56-P
                              ________________

                             Megan K. Leben,
                                   Appellant,

                                      vs.

                          Rayme L. Suarez, etc.,
                                   Appellee.

        Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis Garcia, Judge.

        Taylor English Duma LLP, and Christopher D. Cathey, for appellant.

        Law Office of Jack Bridges., P.A., and Jack Bridges, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

        MILLER, J.

1
    We sua sponte consolidate these two appeals.
        In these consolidated appeals, appellant, a relative of the ward,

challenges a series of orders rendered in companion mental health and

incapacity cases after appellee, the guardian, filed a motion to compel the

sale of certain real property located in Lighthouse Point, Broward County,

Florida.2 As relevant here, the orders direct appellant to correct the deed,

require appellee to list the property with a specified agent within a time

certain, and provide that all sale proceeds shall be deposited in a previously

established brokerage account and used for the care and maintenance of

the ward. Based upon the guardian’s commendable confession of error,

along with our own independent review of the record, we find that asserted

jurisdictional defects concerning the lack of service of process and

unauthorized exercise of in rem jurisdiction are fatal to the orders under

review. See Baraban v. Sussman, 439 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983) (reversing and remanding to “quash the service of process” when

service was insufficient because “strict compliance with service of process

procedures is required”); see also State, Dept. of Nat. Res. v. Antioch Univ.,

533 So. 2d 869, 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“[W]here the cause of action is in

rem, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction only if it has both jurisdictional

power to adjudicate the class of cases to which the cause belongs and

2
    We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

                                        2
jurisdictional authority over the land which is the subject matter of the

controversy.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

     Reversed and remanded.

                                   3