Hernandez Sr. v. Hernandez, 230 So. 3d 119

Elena Hernandez (the Ward), age 85, was found totally incapacitated; her son Eusebio was appointed plenary guardian with authority over her person and property.
Eusebio, with sister Elena’s consent, moved the Ward into assisted living; Antonio (another son) objected and had earlier arranged home care.
Eusebio filed an adversary petition alleging that Antonio, his wife Leonor, and son Antonio Jr. unduly influenced the Ward, misappropriated funds (~$240,000), and caused neglect; those defendants contested the allegations.
The probate court authorized counsel and repeatedly approved attorney’s fees and costs for services benefitting the Ward; those fee petitions were filed and ruled on without notice to Antonio.
Antonio objected and moved to vacate the fee orders, claiming he was an “interested person” entitled to notice and to challenge fees charged against the Ward’s assets.
The probate court found Antonio lacked standing as an “interested person” under the Probate Code and Hayes; the Fourth District affirmed on de novo review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Antonio)	Defendant's Argument (Eusebio)	Held
Whether Antonio was an “interested person” entitled to notice and standing to object to petitions for guardian/attorney fees	Antonio argued he was an active participant, filed a Rule 5.060 request for copies, and would be affected by nearly $100,000 in fees — thus entitled to notice and to be heard	Eusebio argued notice is required to the ward and guardian under §744.108; an interested-person determination depends on the proceeding’s nature and those whose misconduct necessitated the proceedings should not be allowed to challenge fee petitions	Court held Antonio lacked standing as an “interested person” to contest fees tied to proceedings that arose from his alleged misconduct; affirming probate court’s denial of his motion to vacate fee orders
Whether the court should permit heirs who allegedly caused the guardianship to repeatedly contest fee petitions	Antonio contended he should at least get notice and opportunity to be heard, and the court can weigh his motive/bias	Eusebio asserted permitting such objections would allow endless challenges motivated by inheritance concerns and impede guardian counsel’s work for the ward	Court applied Hayes balancing: protect ward and permit careful scrutiny of fees while avoiding endless challenges; ruled in favor of limiting such participation by alleged wrongdoers

Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2006) (defines “interested person” contextually in guardianship; balances ward protection against permissive challenges to fee petitions)
Bivins v. Rogers, 147 So.3d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of review for standing determinations in probate matters — de novo review)
Rudolph v. Rosecan, 154 So.3d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (next of kin status alone does not create interested-person standing)