Glenda Martinez Smith v. J. Alan Smith, 224 So. 3d 740

Alan Smith was declared partially incapacitated after a 2010 head injury; the court removed and delegated his right to contract and to manage property to a limited guardian but found no incapacity warranting a guardian of the person.
Court order noted: if the right to contract is delegated but the right to marry is retained, the right to marry "is subject to court approval."
Alan had an existing relationship and engagement with Glenda Martinez Smith before incapacity; they married in December 2011 without prior court approval.
The guardian refused to petition for court approval; Alan’s court-appointed counsel filed for annulment in 2013 arguing the marriage was void for lack of prior court approval.
Trial court annulled the marriage; the Fourth District affirmed, holding that court approval must precede marriage and that an unapproved marriage is void.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District: held an unapproved marriage is invalid absent court approval but may be ratified after the fact by court approval; remanded for proceedings consistent with that holding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Glenda)	Defendant's Argument (Court-appointed counsel/guardian)	Held
Whether an incapacitated ward whose right to contract has been removed must obtain court approval before marrying, and whether failure to do so renders the marriage void or voidable	The statute does not require prior approval; an unapproved marriage can be ratified by the court after the marriage	The statute makes the "right to marry" subject to court approval, so without prior approval the ward has no legal right to marry and any such marriage is void	The Supreme Court: prior approval is not strictly required; marriages entered without approval are invalid (have no legal effect) but can be ratified later if the court subsequently approves them
Whether the guardianship court’s December 2012 statements amounted to ratification of the marriage	Glenda contends the December 2012 hearing and the court’s remarks ratified the marriage	Respondents contend mere acknowledgment/comments are insufficient; a formal approval/order is required	The Court held the remarks were insufficient; effective ratification requires court approval by order after an appropriate inquiry/hearing

W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. See, 79 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2012) (statutory and constitutional construction are questions of law reviewed de novo)
Davila v. State, 75 So.3d 192 (Fla. 2011) (courts first look to plain language to discern legislative intent)
McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1998) (unambiguous statutes must be applied as written; courts must not extend or limit express terms)
Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (similar rule against judicial extension of clear statutory text)
Kuehmsted v. Turnwall, 138 So. 775 (Fla. 1931) (distinguishing void vs. voidable marriages; void marriages can be attacked anytime)
Jones v. Jones, 161 So. 836 (Fla. 1935) (voidable marriages can be ratified and are valid until avoided)
Mahan v. Mahan, 88 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1956) (marriage entered while incapacitated may be ratified upon regained capacity)
Jasser v. Saadeh, 97 So.3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (where right to contract was removed, contracts executed by the ward are invalid)
In re Guardianship of Bockmuller, 602 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (ward lacking contractual right cannot validly contract with counsel)