1-561-514-0900 FREE CONSULTATION

According to the Florida Probate Code, Who is an Interested Person in a Probate or Guardianship Appeal?

Uncategorized Aug 12, 2016
post about According to the Florida Probate Code, Who is an Interested Person in a Probate or Guardianship Appeal?

Interested persons have certain rights and causes of actions in Florida guardianship or estate administration proceedings. What is an interested person? An August 3, 2016 Fourth DCA appeal discusses the definition of an interested person in great detail.

Florida Probate Code and Interested Persons

  • Florida Probate Code Section 731.201(23) provides the following definition: “Interested person” means any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.
  • Interested persons have greater rights than others when it comes to Florida probate. For instance, interested persons have a right to request information regarding the inventory and accounting of a Florida estate.
  • This is information that is kept confidential from the general public.
  • Only interested persons have standing (a legal right to be involved) in Florida probate court proceedings.
  • Interested persons can object to various pleadings or intervene in the Florida probate proceeding.
  • Interested persons can object to the qualifications of the Florida personal representative, the validity of the will, guardian appointments, or the venue/jurisdiction of the court handling the Florida probate.

St. Peter v. Osorio-Kohr

  • This was a guardianship appeal out of the Fourth DCA.
  • Guardianships are becoming more and more common in Florida, which means that guardianship litigators are in demand.
  • Here the appellant requested attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 after the trial court determined that the appellee did not have standing in the matter.
  • The Fourth DCA affirmed the “trial court’s ruling denying the motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014), based on our conclusion that Khor’s removal position was not “frivolous” such that it was “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
  • Here, the appellee was not determined to be an interested person.
  • How come?
  • To read the entire Fourth DCA guardianship appeal, click here.