169 So. 3d 278
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Father (ward) and five daughters; father and four out-of-state daughters had 39,668 FNB/Omega Bank shares titled as joint tenants with right of survivorship (9,917 each).
- Father sued the four out-of-state daughters in Pennsylvania (2010), claiming he did not intend to gift the shares; litigation pending when other proceedings began.
- In Sept. 2012 the Florida-resident fifth daughter obtained emergency temporary guardianship of the father (after his stroke) and was granted authority over all shares and dividends.
- On Sept. 12, 2012, without notice to the four daughters or a hearing, the court signed an agreed order transferring 51,636 FNB shares (including the 39,668 disputed shares) to the fifth daughter as guardian; the father died the next day.
- The fifth daughter later transferred the shares to herself as personal representative of the estate; the Pennsylvania court subsequently (Jan. 2013) found the four daughters owned the disputed shares as joint tenants.
- The four daughters objected in Florida, arguing lack of reasonable notice and denial of due process; the trial court approved the guardian’s final report and discharged the guardian, finding their objections untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant (Guardian/Estate) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer of jointly-held stock via emergency guardianship order deprived daughters of property without due process | Transfer affected their property interests; they were "interested persons" entitled to reasonable notice and hearing | Court followed guardianship rules and plaintiffs failed to appear or file appropriate requests | Court: transfer without reasonable notice violated due process; reversal in part |
| Whether Florida Probate Rule 5.041 required notice to the four daughters before transfer | Rule 5.041 requires service on "interested persons"—the daughters were interested persons | Guardianship argued Rule 5.648(b) controls and did not require notice to them for emergency hearing | Court: daughters were interested persons under the statute and entitled to notice under Rule 5.041 |
| Whether four days' notice before the emergency hearing was reasonable | Four days was insufficient to prepare and be heard on transfer affecting ownership | Guardian pointed to service of papers and urgency of emergency guardianship | Court: four days’ notice was unreasonably short in guardianship context; insufficient for due process |
| Whether daughters’ later objections to discharge/final report were waived as untimely | Objections filed after 30-day period and no hearing noticed within 90 days; argued prior due-process defect rendered proceedings void | Guardian relied on Rule 5.680(f) to treat objections as abandoned for untimeliness | Court: daughters’ objections to discharge/final report were untimely and thus abandoned under Rule 5.680(f) |
Key Cases Cited
- VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., 68 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (de novo review standard for due-process compliance)
- Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov’t, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2001) (due process requires fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Hagopian v. Zimmer, 653 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (presumptive owners of joint accounts are entitled to notice)
- Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (actual notice and reasonable time to prepare required; no hard-and-fast day count)
- Anderson v. Sun Trust Bank/N., 679 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (four days’ notice in guardianship proceedings held unreasonably short)