Adelman v. Elfenbein, 174 So. 3d 516

Hillary Elfenbein filed an incapacity and plenary-guardian petition for her great-uncle Burton Adelman; a general magistrate found Burton incapacitated but concluded his advance directives provided a less-restrictive alternative to guardianship.
Burton’s former spouse, Ruby Adelman, was identified in Burton’s advance directive documents as attorney-in-fact, health care surrogate, plenary guardian, and trustee; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s report and dismissed Elfenbein’s guardianship petition; no appeal was taken.
Months later Elfenbein filed a "petition to reopen" seeking appointment of a professional plenary guardian (Lori Shuman-Auspitz), alleging Ruby failed to provide adequate care; Burton and Ruby vigorously objected.
The trial court held a new trial and appointed the professional guardian; Ruby appealed that appointment.
The Fourth District concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter after the earlier orders became final, because no statutory authority allowed reopening when the court previously found alternatives to guardianship sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could reopen a concluded incapacity proceeding to appoint a guardian after it had previously found alternatives sufficient	Elfenbein: court retained parens patriae duty and may reopen to protect Burton	Ruby/Burton: prior orders were final; court lost jurisdiction and no statute authorizes reopening	Reopened petition was barred; court lacked jurisdiction; appointment reversed
Whether a guardian may be appointed when an advance directive provides a less-restrictive alternative	Elfenbein: guardian needed due to inadequate care despite directives	Court/magistrate: statute forbids appointment if adequate alternatives exist	A guardian may not be appointed if court finds an adequate alternative to guardianship
Effect of failure to appeal magistrate-adopting orders within statutory periods	Elfenbein: sought to relitigate later based on changed circumstances	Ruby/Burton: final unappealed orders became absolute and precluded later modification	Final unappealed orders barred subsequent reopening absent statutory basis
Scope of ongoing circuit court jurisdiction after finding incapacity but declining guardianship	Elfenbein: continued parens patriae jurisdiction allows intervention	Ruby/Burton: jurisdiction ended except to enforce orders	Court held no ongoing jurisdiction to reopen where no guardian was appointed

Graham v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 970 So.2d 438 (standard of review: statutory interpretation de novo)
In re Fey, 624 So.2d 770 (guardianship statutes must be strictly construed)
Smith v. Lynch, 821 So.2d 1197 (court may find incapacity yet decline to appoint guardian when lesser alternative exists)
Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So.3d 133 (after rehearing period expires, court’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing existing orders)
In re Beeman’s Estate, 391 So.2d 276 (final unappealed orders cannot be altered by the trial court)
In re McDonnell, 266 So.2d 87 (courts should avoid unnecessary deprivation of individual rights in guardianship context)