CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1855042
...On June 25, 1999, Fiss filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the Ward and a suggestion of capacity. Fiss subsequently filed an amended suggestion of capacity in which he identified his clients as "the Ward and/or Norman C. Vik." Vick claimed to be an interested person in the proceedings under section 744.464, Florida Statutes (1999), as a result of his being a close friend and neighbor of the Ward. Section 744.464(2)(a) provides, in part, that "[a]n interested person, including the Ward, may file a suggestion of capacity." Later in the proceedings, the court appointed LeRoy Merkle as successor to King as counsel for the Ward....
...The Ward has a right to be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time and to have continuing review of the need for restriction of her rights. See §
744.3215(1)(b), (c), Fla. Stat. (2000). The Ward and any "interested person," which Vick asserts that he is, may file a suggestion of capacity. §
744.464(2)(a)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2401
...facts essential to the result and placed in issue by the pleadings. Wells v. Wilkerson,
391 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Henry does not refer us to any authority requiring an incompetent to be a bona fide resident of Florida before a restoration action may be maintained in a state court. In fact, Section
744.464, Florida Statutes (1983), governing restoration of competency, provides at subsection (4) that the petition may be filed "in the county where the person ......
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13400, 2016 WL 4651336
...y asking the successor judge to restore
Ward’s rights. Temporary Guardian filed a timely objection to the suggestion of
capacity, and the trial court appointed an independent physician to examine Ward
and report on Ward’s capacity pursuant to section 744.464 of the Florida Statutes.
Before the examination took place, Ward and his wife filed an emergency
petition for an injunction to prevent Temporary Guardian from communicating
with the court-appointed physician....
...To better understand why we are reviewing the injunction order under an
abuse of discretion standard, we briefly examine the relevant provisions of the two
statutes implicated in this case: (i) section
744.331 governing initial determination
of incapacity, and (ii) section
744.464 governing restoration proceedings.
Upon receipt of a petition to determine incapacity, the trial court is required
to appoint a three-person examining committee to determine initially a person’s
alleged incapacity....
...capacity to have the trial court restore any rights previously removed. Pursuant to
the relevant statute, “[t]he suggestion of capacity must state that the ward is
currently capable of exercising some or all of the rights which were removed.” §
744.464(2)(a), Fla....
...(2014) (emphasis added). Upon the filing of a suggestion
of capacity, the trial court must immediately appoint a physician to conduct an
examination of the ward who must conduct an examination and file a report within
twenty days of appointment. § 744.464(2)(b), Fla....
...member of the examination committee must have access to prior examination
reports of the alleged incapacitated person. No such requirement is contained in
the statute governing examinations of a ward conducted upon the filing of a
suggestion of capacity. In fact, section
744.464(2) neither incorporates section
744.331’s examination requirements, nor contains any other specific requirements
for the independent physician’s examination.
Temporary Guardian asserts that we should graft requirements onto section
744.464(2) that the Legislature did not include, and then, employing de novo
review, reverse the trial court’s injunction as if those requirements were contained
7
in the statute. We decline Temporary Guardian’s invitation to add provisions to
section
744.464(2) that simply are not there....
...State,
750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.
1999). Further, nothing in this record suggests that the trial court’s injunction
impermissibly frustrated the independent physician’s compliance with the
admittedly minimal examination requirements prescribed by section
744.464(2).
A close and careful review of the trial court’s injunction order, and the
proceedings thereon, reveal that the trial court was concerned about the possible
effect of ex parte communications on the independent physician’s evaluation of
Ward....
...2d at 1249.
8
B. Order on Ward’s Motion in Limine
Temporary Guardian also challenges the trial court’s order on Ward’s
motion in limine. The order precluded the admission of evidence not directly
related to Ward’s then current capacity.
As section 744.464 makes clear, the purpose of the suggestion of capacity
evidentiary hearing is for the trial court to determine whether the ward has
regained capacity so that rights previously removed from the ward should be
restored. § 744.464(3), Fla. Stat. (2014). Indeed, the allegation that must be
established by a preponderance of the evidence is whether “the ward is currently
capable of exercising some or all of the rights which were removed.” §
744.464(2)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 69, 1999 WL 2803
...Rather than appointing an examining committee within five days pursuant to section
744.331(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), the trial court treated the petition as a “suggestion of further incapacity of the ward” and proceeded to appoint one physician to examine the ward within twenty days, by analogy with section
744.464, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides for the restoration of one or more rights after an interested person files a suggestion of capacity....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4289, 1999 WL 188077
PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order on suggestion of capacity where the trial court properly followed the procedure as set forth in section 744.464, Florida Statutes (1997), and where the appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion....
