PROBATE CORNER
Let ’ s Get Rid Of Those Pesky Interested Persons
DAVID M . GARTEN
In Martino v . Colombo ( In re Martino ), 2020 Fla . App . LEXIS 9759 ; 45 Fla . L . Weekly D 1634 ; 2020 WL 3816113 ( Fla . 2nd DCA July 8 , 2020 ), a guardianship action was filed against Ronald T . Martino and Colombo was appointed as plenary guardian . The Ward ’ s daughter , Martino , objected to the assisted living facility and made it extremely difficult for Colombo to do her job . Martino repeatedly contacting Colombo with complaints about the facility ; attempted to relocate the Ward to another facility without Colombo ' s consent ; took the Ward out of the facility for day trips against the wishes of facility staff ; emailed more than sixty complaints directly to the facility ; posted negative comments about the facility on social media ; and defied court orders , including gag orders to stop posting about the facility on social media . Finally , Martino filed a petition to have Colombo removed as guardian and Colombo resigned . At a later hearing on a motion filed by Martino to remove the successor guardian , Colombo testified that the reason for her resignation was her exasperation with Martino and that " finally I said that ' s it . I — I ' m done with — with it . I can ' t do this anymore ."
Following Colombo ' s resignation , both she and her attorney filed petitions with the court seeking payment of their fees . Martino filed objections to both petitions , challenging the reasonableness of the amounts sought and the validity of the work performed . Following a hearing , the trial court entered an order determining that pursuant to Hayes v . Guardianship of Thompson , 952 So . 2d 498 ( Fla . 2006 ), Martino was not an interested person pursuant to section 731.201 ( 23 ), F . S ., and that therefore she lacked standing to object to the fee petitions . The appellate court affirmed . The court reasoned :
" Here , it is undisputed that Martino filed the request for notice pursuant to the rule . She maintains that because she is the daughter of the Ward and requested notice , pursuant to Hayes she is entitled to notice of further proceedings as an " interested person " and that the purpose of such notice is to enable her to participate in the proceedings to the extent that she may challenge the fee petitions filed by Colombo and her attorney . We disagree ."
Section 731.201 ( 23 ) defines " interested person " as " any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved ." But "[ t ] he meaning [ of ' interested person '], as it relates to particular persons , may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purpose of , and matter involved in , any proceedings ." In
Hayes , the Florida Supreme Court concluded that whether " heirs of the ward may be considered ' interested persons ' for the purpose of participating in a guardianship proceeding , including a proceeding for guardian ' s or attorney ' s fees " depends on " the circumstances of the case and the specific issues involved ." Hayes , 952 So . 2d at 508 ( emphasis added ); see also In re Guardianship of Trost , 100 So . 3d 1205 , 1210 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2012 ) (" The definition of ' interested person ' requires the trial court to evaluate the nature of both the proceeding and the interest asserted ").
As such , a party does not have a right to " interested person " status simply by filing a Rule 5.060 ( a ) request for notice and being related to the ward . Rather , interested person status is a privilege bestowed upon an individual as determined by the trial court . See Trost , 100 So . 3d at 1210 (" The trial court must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a party who receives notice of petitions is an ' interested person ' for purposes of a guardianship proceeding ." ( emphasis added )). And " because the question of who is an ' interested person ' may vary as the circumstances of the guardianship change ," the supreme court has explained that it " cannot provide strict guidelines for the lower courts to follow in deciding whether a party who receives notice of a petition for . . . fees pursuant to a request made under Rule 5.060 is a ' person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the . . . proceeding .'" Hayes , 952 So . 2d at 508 . The court did , however , note that "[ i ] n guardianship proceedings , the overwhelming public policy is the protection of the ward ." Id . at 505 ( citing § 744.1012 ).
Here , the trial court determined that Martino was not an interested person because "[ t ] he record in this case is replete with examples of [ her ] interfering with the administration of the guardianship and the care of the Ward resulting in unnecessary expense to the guardianship estate ." Based on " the circumstances of the case and the specific issues involved ," see Hayes , 952 So . 2d at 508 , we cannot say that the trial court erred in making this determination as it is supported by the record . Although at the outset of the guardianship proceeding Martino " may reasonably [ have ] expected to be affected by [ its ] outcome ," see § 731.201 ( 23 ), " as the circumstances of the guardianship change [ d ]" due to Martino ' s own actions , she squandered her privilege to " interested person " status by her own inappropriate conduct , see Hayes , 952 So . 2d at 508-09 ( upholding the trial court ' s conclusion that the heirs in that case were not interested persons where not only did they fail to file a Rule 5.060 request for notice but where it also was " inescapable that the fees they . . . claim [ ed were ] excessive came [ about ] as a result of their own misconduct "). Martino ' s interference with the administration of Colombo ' s duties and willful disregard of trial court orders resulted in increased legal bills for the guardian as well as additional expenses to the Ward ' s estate and threatened the well-being of the Ward .
Despite the fact that Martino filed the Rule 5.060 request for notice , the trial court ' s determination that Martino is not an interested person necessarily divested her of standing to object to the fee petitions of Colombo and her attorney . In Hayes , 952 So . 2d at 509 , the supreme court held " that in guardianship proceedings concerning . . . fees under section 744.108 , the only persons entitled to standing are the attorney making [ a ] fee request , the guardian , the ward , and those ' interested persons ' who have filed written requests for notice under [ rule ] 5.060 ." As Martino fits none of these categories , we affirm the trial court ' s order denying with prejudice her objections to the fee petitions filed by Colombo and her attorney due to Martino ' s lack of standing . PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 17