Lines are Available 24/7

Client Portal
Free Consultation

Se Habla Español

Lines are Available 24/7
Se Habla Español

Free Consultation

Guardianship Litigation in Florida: Contesting Incapacity, Fighting Over Who Serves, and Removing a Guardian

October 13, 2026
Older adult holding hands with an adult family member

A guardianship takes away an adult’s legal right to make his or her own decisions. Florida treats that as one of the most serious things a court can do, and the statute reflects it. Chapter 744 is full of short deadlines, mandatory steps, and required findings. Most guardianship fights are won or lost on whether those steps were followed.

That is true whether you represent the person alleged to be incapacitated, a family member who wants a guardian appointed, a family member who wants a different guardian, or someone trying to get a guardian removed. This article walks through the process the way a contested case actually unfolds: the incapacity petition, the examining committee, the hearing, the alternatives that can make a guardian unnecessary, the fight over who serves, emergency guardianship, removal, restoration, and fees.

1. The process is the defense

The Fourth District put the governing principle this way, quoting a 1977 decision: “Proceedings to determine the competency of a person are generally controlled by statute and where a statute prescribes a certain method of proceeding to make that determination, the statute must be strictly followed.” Cook v. Cook, 260 So. 3d 281, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). The Fifth District said it more bluntly: “Compliance with the requirements of section 744.331 is mandatory and the trial court’s failure to adhere to those requirements constitutes reversible error.” Borden v. Guardianship of Borden-Moore, 818 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

So the first job in any contested guardianship is to learn the procedure in section 744.331 cold and check every step.

The petition. Any adult may file a petition to determine incapacity. § 744.3201(1), Fla. Stat. It must be verified and must state the factual basis for the belief that the person is incapacitated, the names of people with personal knowledge of those facts, and which specific rights the person cannot exercise. § 744.3201(2). Since 2024 it must also say whether the person uses assistance, including supported decisionmaking, and why that assistance is not enough. § 744.3201(2)(d). The probate rules add that the petition must identify known alternatives to guardianship, such as trusts, powers of attorney, and health care surrogate designations, and explain why they are insufficient. Fla. Prob. R. 5.550(a)(8). A petition that skips these allegations is a target.

The examining committee. Within 5 days after the petition is filed, the court appoints a three-member examining committee. One member must be a psychiatrist or other physician, and one must have knowledge of the type of incapacity alleged. § 744.331(3)(a). The family or attending physician may not serve unless good cause is shown, though the committee must consult that physician if available. Id. Members may not be related to or associated with each other, the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner or the proposed guardian, or the person being examined. Id.

Each member must perform a comprehensive examination that includes, if indicated, a physical examination, a mental health examination, and a functional assessment, and any omitted piece must be explained. § 744.331(3)(f). Each member must file a report within 15 days after appointment. § 744.331(3)(e). The reports must address the person’s ability to exercise each specific right, including the rights to “marry; vote; contract; manage or dispose of property; have a driver license; determine her or his residence; consent to medical treatment; and make decisions affecting her or his social environment.” § 744.331(3)(g).

These requirements have teeth. In Cook, the Fourth District reversed an incapacity adjudication because no committee member performed, reported, or explained the absence of the required physical and mental health examinations. “The stakes could not be higher for the prospective ward. For this reason, those who participate in the process must strictly adhere to statutory mandates.” 260 So. 3d at 287-88. (On rehearing, the court clarified that the three parts of the exam may be performed by qualified people outside the committee, and committee members may rely on those reports. Id. at 291.)

Dismissal by the committee. “If a majority of the examining committee members conclude that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated in any respect, the court shall dismiss the petition.” § 744.331(4). This is not discretionary. In Rothman v. Rothman, 93 So. 3d 1052, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the Fourth District issued a writ of mandamus compelling dismissal: “If the majority of the members of the examining committee find the person is not incapacitated, the trial court ‘shall’ dismiss the petition. This act is ministerial.”

Objecting to the reports. The reports must be served on the petitioner and the person’s attorney at least 10 days before the hearing. § 744.331(3)(h). Either side may object to the reports coming into evidence by filing a written objection at least 5 days before the hearing, and “[i]f an objection is timely filed and served, the court shall apply the rules of evidence in determining the reports’ admissibility.” § 744.331(3)(i).

That objection is one of the most important tools in the case. The reports are hearsay. In Shen v. Parkes, 100 So. 3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the court reversed because “this was a contested hearing, and Shen objected to the reports as hearsay where the committee members did not testify.” The Third District followed Shen in Silva v. Silva, No. 3D23-0811, slip op. at 10 (Fla. 3d DCA June 12, 2024), reversing a rights-removal order that rested on reports admitted over objection. A timely objection means the rules of evidence govern the reports’ admissibility, so the petitioner must call the examiners or lay a hearsay exception. Without an objection, the reports come in.

The hearing. The adjudicatory hearing must be held at least 10 days, but no more than 30 days, after the last report is filed, unless good cause is shown, and “in a manner consistent with due process.” § 744.331(5)(a). The person must be present unless presence is waived or good cause is shown. § 744.331(5)(b). Incapacity “must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” § 744.331(5)(c).

A contested incapacity hearing is a trial. In Fernandez v. Guardianship of Fernandez, 36 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the court reversed where the judge questioned the witnesses himself and allowed little cross-examination: “the matter should have been tried as is customary in a bench trial. The parties should have been given an opportunity to make opening and closing statements. Each party should have been given an opportunity to present evidence, call and question witnesses, and cross-examine the other side’s witnesses.”

Notice matters, too. In August 2026, the Second District reversed an adjudication because the hearing went forward before a different judicial officer, at a different time and place, than the notice of hearing stated. Bandoian v. Carpenter (In re Guardianship of Bandoian), No. 2D2025-1993, slip op. at 4 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 14, 2026). Section 744.331(5)(a) requires the hearing to be held “at the time and place specified in the notice of hearing.”

The order. The court “may only remove those rights that the court finds the person does not have the capacity to exercise,” and the order must state the exact nature and scope of the incapacities and the specific rights removed. § 744.331(6). “An incapacitated person retains all rights not specifically removed by the court.” § 744.331(6)(e). A plenary order where the evidence supports only a limited one is an appellate issue.

On appeal. The appellate court asks whether there is “substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of clear and convincing evidence.” Poteat v. Guardianship of Poteat, 771 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). That is a deferential standard, which is one more reason to win the record at the trial level. And an order determining incapacity is itself a final, appealable order. A party who waits to appeal until a later order loses review of the capacity finding. See Silva, No. 3D23-0811 (dismissing the untimely part of the appeal).

2. The lawyer for the alleged incapacitated person

The court must appoint an attorney for every person alleged to be incapacitated, and that person “may substitute her or his own attorney for the attorney appointed by the court.” § 744.331(2)(b). The appointed attorney may not later serve as guardian or as counsel for the guardian or the petitioner. § 744.331(2)(c).

The most important rule about that lawyer is whose side the lawyer is on. The statute says the attorney “shall represent the expressed wishes of the alleged incapacitated person to the extent it is consistent with the rules regulating The Florida Bar.” § 744.102(1). In Erlandsson v. Guardianship of Erlandsson, Nos. 4D19-2521 & 4D19-2522 (Fla. 4th DCA May 6, 2020), appointed counsel argued for a plenary guardianship over her own client’s objection. The Fourth District reversed: “The language of the statute clearly requires that a lawyer appointed in guardianship proceedings represents the expressed wishes and not necessarily the ‘best interests’ of a prospective ward.” Id., slip op. at 6.

If you represent a family member opposing the guardianship, watch what appointed counsel is doing. If appointed counsel is advocating for the guardianship over the client’s stated objection, that is a conflict, and Erlandsson is the case to cite.

3. Alternatives to guardianship: the strongest defense in many cases

Signing estate planning documents

A finding of incapacity does not automatically mean a guardian. The statute requires a second, separate step:

“When an order determines that a person is incapable of exercising delegable rights, the court must consider and find whether there is an alternative to guardianship that will sufficiently address the problems of the incapacitated person. A guardian may not be appointed if the court finds there is an alternative to guardianship which will sufficiently address the problems of the incapacitated person.” § 744.331(6)(b), Fla. Stat.

The legislative intent behind the chapter points the same way: alternatives and “less restrictive means of assistance” should “be explored before a plenary guardian is appointed.” § 744.1012(2).

The usual alternatives are a durable power of attorney, a health care surrogate designation, a revocable trust, and, since 2024, a supported decisionmaking agreement. See § 709.2209. Planning documents signed while the person was competent are often the best defense a family has.

The case law is consistent. In Smith v. Lynch, 821 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the court affirmed a decision not to appoint a guardian for a person found incompetent, because a valid durable power of attorney already protected her: “The obvious import behind all of these provisions is to require the appointment of a guardian only when no other lesser intrusion on the privacy of the ward will accomplish the purpose of protecting the ward’s property.” In Adelman v. Elfenbein, 174 So. 3d 516, 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the court said it directly: “If there is an alternative to guardianship, the court is prohibited from appointing a guardian.” Adelman also held that once the court finds an alternative and dismisses, it has no ongoing jurisdiction to reopen the case and install a professional guardian later. Id.

In August 2026, the Fourth District vacated the appointment of a professional plenary guardian over a woman whose daughter held a valid durable power of attorney and health care surrogate designation. “Under section 744.331(6)(b), the circuit court must rule on less restrictive alternatives before appointing a guardian. Skipping this step to appoint a plenary guardian is reversible structural error.” Frank v. Guardianship of Frank, No. 4D2024-1073, slip op. at 6 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 19, 2026) (not final pending rehearing when this article was written). The court also vacated the guardian’s later sale of the ward’s home and the fee orders that flowed from the invalid appointment. Id.

Attacking the alternative. If you are the petitioner and you believe the power of attorney or trust is itself the problem, the statute gives you a way to take it off the table. If an interested person files a verified statement stating “a good faith belief that the alleged incapacitated person’s trust, trust amendment, or durable power of attorney is invalid,” along with “a reasonable factual basis for that belief,” then that instrument “shall not be deemed to be an alternative to the appointment of a guardian.” § 744.331(6)(f). That statement must be true and must be specific. It is signed under oath.

What happens to the power of attorney when the petition is filed. This is one of the most misunderstood rules in Florida guardianship practice. Under section 709.2109(3), if anyone “initiates judicial proceedings to determine the principal’s incapacity or for the appointment of a guardian advocate, the authority granted under the power of attorney is suspended” until the petition is dismissed or withdrawn or the court authorizes the agent to act.

There is an important exception. If the agent is the principal’s “parent, spouse, child, or grandchild, the authority under the power of attorney is not suspended unless a verified motion in accordance with s. 744.3203 is also filed.” § 709.2109(3). That motion must state specific facts under penalty of perjury and rest on one of the listed grounds, such as abuse of the power, invalidity, or danger that property “may be wasted, misappropriated, or lost.” § 744.3203(1)-(2). A family dispute that belongs in another forum is not a ground. § 744.3203(1). Once the agent responds, the court must set an expedited hearing. § 744.3203(3). And “a court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to an agent who successfully challenges the suspension of the power of attorney if the petitioner’s motion was made in bad faith.” § 744.3203(4).

Two more details matter. The agent may petition for authority to act in an emergency while the case is pending. § 709.2109(3)(a). And unless the court orders otherwise, the incapacity proceeding “does not affect the authority of the agent to make health care decisions for the principal.” § 709.2109(3)(b).

After a guardian is appointed. The alternatives question does not go away. If a petition is later filed showing an alternative that will sufficiently address the ward’s problems, “the court shall review the continued need for a guardian.” § 744.462; see Fla. Prob. R. 5.685.

4. The fight over who serves

Many guardianship cases are not really about whether a guardian is needed. They are about who it will be.

Preneed designations. A competent adult may name a preneed guardian in a written declaration signed in front of two witnesses. § 744.3045(1)-(2). Producing that declaration “shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the preneed guardian is entitled to serve as guardian.” § 744.3045(4). And the appointment statute is mandatory: if the designated person is qualified, “the court shall appoint any standby guardian or preneed guardian, unless the court determines that appointing such person is contrary to the best interests of the ward.” § 744.312(1).

Courts enforce that presumption. In Martinez v. Guardianship of Smith, 159 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the trial court appointed a professional guardian over the ward’s wife, his designated preneed guardian and health care surrogate, largely because of her conflicts with nursing home staff. The Fourth District reversed: “The mere existence of conflict with the staff of the nursing facility, however, does not show that her appointment would be contrary to the best interests of the ward. Indeed, she may need to advocate forcefully to get the ward the care he needs.” Id. at 399. The presumption “may only be overcome by substantial, competent evidence.” Id. at 398 (quoting Acuna v. Dresner, 41 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).

The timing of the designation matters. In Silva, a new “preneed” declaration signed after the person had already been found partially incapacitated was, at best, “a ‘post need’ designation and therefore outside the ambit of the preneed guardian statute.” Silva, slip op. at 8. The earlier, valid declaration controlled. As Silva noted, quoting an earlier Third District case, where a ward’s preference can be known, “that intent is the polestar to guide probate judges in the appointment of their guardians.” Id., slip op. at 7 (quoting In re Estate of Salley, 742 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)).

Without a designation. The court may appoint any qualified, fit, and proper person, and “shall give preference” to someone related by blood or marriage, someone with relevant experience, and someone with the capacity to manage the finances involved. § 744.312(2). The court must consider the incapacitated person’s own wishes, any guardian named in a will under which the ward is a beneficiary, and the wishes of next of kin when the ward cannot express a preference. § 744.312(3). If the court appoints a professional guardian outside a rotation system, it must make specific findings on each of those factors. § 744.312(4)(a). The court’s choice is a “limited discretion” that “must be exercised consistent with” the statute. Poteat, 771 So. 2d at 572.

Professional guardians who start as emergency guardians. A professional guardian appointed as emergency temporary guardian “may not be appointed as the permanent guardian of a ward unless one of the next of kin of the alleged incapacitated person or the ward requests” it, subject to a narrow waiver on specific findings. § 744.312(4)(b). And no one gets preference simply because they served as the emergency guardian. § 744.312(5). Families who are told the emergency guardian will simply stay on should know this rule.

Disqualification. A convicted felon, a person incapable of discharging the duties, or a person “otherwise unsuitable” may not be appointed, and “[t]he court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance in which a conflict of interest may occur.” § 744.309(3).

5. Emergency temporary guardianship

An emergency temporary guardian may be appointed only after a petition to determine incapacity has been filed, and only if the court “specifically find[s] that there appears to be imminent danger that the physical or mental health or safety of the person will be seriously impaired or that the person’s property is in danger of being wasted, misappropriated, or lost unless immediate action is taken.” § 744.3031(1). The powers must be specifically listed in the order. Id.

Notice must be served on the person and the person’s attorney at least 24 hours before the hearing, unless the petitioner shows substantial harm would result. § 744.3031(2). The court must appoint counsel for the person in the emergency proceeding, and the Fourth District has held that “counsel must be appointed at the same time the emergency temporary guardian is appointed.” Martinez v. Cramer, 121 So. 3d 580, 580-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

The appointment expires after 90 days or when a permanent guardian is appointed, whichever comes first, and may be extended once for another 90 days “upon a showing that the emergency conditions still exist.” § 744.3031(4). The emergency guardian must file a final report within 30 days after the appointment ends, and no final fees are paid until it is filed. § 744.3031(9).

Starting January 1, 2027, the probate rules will require that notice of an emergency petition be served by an elisor, defined as “a person, other than an interested person in the guardianship proceeding, who is designated by the court to provide notice to the alleged incapacitated person and who may be the court-appointed attorney,” and the elisor “must read the notice and the petition to the alleged incapacitated person.” In re Amendments to Fla. Prob. Rules 5.015, 5.630, & 5.648, No. SC2025-2011 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2026).

6. Removing a guardian

Courtroom interior

A guardian may be removed for any of 21 statutory reasons. § 744.474. The ones that come up most in litigation are fraud in obtaining the appointment, failure to discharge duties, abuse of powers, failure to comply with court orders, “[t]he wasting, embezzlement, or other mismanagement of the ward’s property,” a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward, failure to timely file the required reports, and disqualification after appointment. § 744.474(1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (11), (14), (18).

There is also a catch-all: removal “[u]pon a showing that removal of the current guardian is in the best interest of the ward.” § 744.474(20). But when the guardian is a family member, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the guardian is acting in the best interests of the ward.” Id. Removing a family guardian on best-interests grounds alone is an uphill case. Removing a professional guardian, where that presumption does not apply, is a different case. And a relative who never got the required notice of the original incapacity petition has a specific path to seek removal of a non-family guardian. § 744.474(19).

Who can bring it, and how. Removal may be started “by the court, by any surety or other interested person, or by the ward.” § 744.477. Under the probate rules, the petition “must state with particularity the reasons why the guardian should be removed,” and next of kin must be served with it. Fla. Prob. R. 5.660(a). Silveira v. Guardianship of Quiroga, 156 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), recognized next of kin as petitioners under an earlier version of the rule. A removed guardian must file an accounting within 20 days and turn over property and records to the successor. Fla. Prob. R. 5.660(b)-(c).

Standing and access to records. Standing in a guardianship turns on the specific proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court held that “if the person is entitled to notice or is authorized to file an objection under the Florida Guardianship Law or the Florida Probate Rules, that person has standing to participate in the guardianship proceeding.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 506 (Fla. 2006). But being next of kin does not open every file. “Matthias Trost’s status as next of kin, without more, does not entitle him to disclosure of all guardianship documents.” Swan v. Trost, 100 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

The tools short of removal. Removal is not the only remedy, and often not the first one.

7. Restoration of rights

A guardianship is not supposed to be permanent if the person improves. Any interested person, including the ward, may file a suggestion of capacity stating that the ward can now exercise some or all of the removed rights, including with appropriate assistance. § 744.464(2)(a). The court “shall immediately appoint a physician to examine the ward,” and the physician must report within 20 days. § 744.464(2)(b). Objections are due within 20 days after service of notice. § 744.464(2)(d). If there is an objection, or the exam does not support full restoration, the court must set a hearing and appoint a lawyer for the ward if the ward has none. § 744.464(2)(e). The court must “give priority to any suggestion of capacity and shall advance the cause on the calendar.” § 744.464(4).

The burden is lower than at the original hearing. “The ward has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the restoration of capacity is warranted.” § 744.464(3)(b). In Hedges v. Hamilton, No. 5D2023-2995 (Fla. 5th DCA May 30, 2024), the Fifth District reversed the denial of a ward’s suggestion of capacity because the trial court applied a clear and convincing standard instead. The question is the ward’s current capacity, not the history that led to the guardianship. Linde v. Linde, 199 So. 3d 1102, 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

8. Fees

Fee exposure shapes every guardianship case, and the rules are not intuitive.

Fees paid from the ward’s estate. A guardian, and an attorney who served the ward or the guardian on the ward’s behalf, “is entitled to a reasonable fee.” § 744.108(1). The court weighs listed factors, including “[t]he results obtained.” § 744.108(2). Fee petitions must include “an itemized description of the services performed.” § 744.108(5). Testimony at the hearing does not cure a petition that omits it. In re Guardianship of Sapp, 868 So. 2d 687, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). And a family guardian is not paid for ordinary family duties: “a guardian who is in a close familial relationship with the ward is not entitled to be compensated for the performance of normal family duties on behalf of the ward merely because of his or her status as guardian.” Id. at 697.

Fees for fighting about fees. The cost of litigating a fee request is generally paid from the estate “unless the court finds the requested compensation under subsection (2) to be substantially unreasonable.” § 744.108(8). A fee request that is far out of line puts the cost of defending it at risk.

When no guardian is appointed. The courts have held that “Chapter 744 simply does not contemplate the payment of fees and costs from an alleged incapacitated person absent the establishment of a guardianship.” In re Guardianship of Klatthaar, 129 So. 3d 482, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see Steiner v. Guardianship of Steiner, 159 So. 3d 253, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The current statute now has the state pay the examining committee when a petition is dismissed or denied, and adds that “[c]osts and attorney fees of the proceeding may be assessed against the petitioner if the court finds the petition to have been filed in bad faith.” § 744.331(7)(c). A family member who files an incapacity petition as a litigation tactic is taking a real risk.

Emergency guardianship fees. Counsel for an emergency temporary guardian and counsel for the person may recover fees under section 744.108 even if the person dies before any adjudication. Kemp v. Berschback, 204 So. 3d 143, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Who can be heard on fees. In fee proceedings under section 744.108, standing is limited to the requesting attorney, the guardian, the ward, “and those ‘interested persons’ who have filed written requests for notice under Florida Probate Rule 5.060.” Hayes, 952 So. 2d at 509. If you represent a family member who wants a voice on fees, file the request for notice early.

Not against the other side personally. In a case involving a guardian advocate under section 393.12, the Fourth District said, as an alternative holding, that section 744.108 “authorizes a fee award only from a guardianship estate, not third parties.” Ticktin v. Goldmintz, No. 4D2023-1501, slip op. at 8 (Fla. 4th DCA July 17, 2024). Shifting fees to an opposing family member requires a different basis. In Ticktin, that basis was the fee provision for a meritless petition for interim judicial review, § 744.3715(2), along with discovery sanctions. Id.

9. How I approach a contested guardianship

When a family comes in, whichever side they are on, I work through the same list.

  1. Pull the planning documents first. Durable power of attorney, health care surrogate designation, living will, revocable trust, preneed guardian declaration. Note the dates, the witnesses, and whether the person was competent when they were signed. These documents decide whether a guardian is needed and who serves.
  2. Calendar the statute. Five days to appoint the committee. Fifteen days for reports. Reports served 10 days before the hearing. Objections to reports 5 days before the hearing. Hearing 10 to 30 days after the last report. In an emergency, 24-hour notice, a 90-day appointment, and one 90-day extension.
  3. Audit the committee. Who was appointed, their qualifications and connections, whether each member performed the required physical exam, mental health exam, and functional assessment or explained why not, and whether the reports address each right individually.
  4. File the hearsay objection when it helps. If the reports are thin or wrong, the 5-day objection puts the reports under the rules of evidence, which usually means the examiners have to testify.
  5. Address the power of attorney right away. Is it suspended by filing, or does the family-member exception apply? Is a section 744.3203 motion needed or coming? Does the agent need emergency authority?
  6. Make the alternatives record. The court must decide the alternatives question before appointing a guardian. Put the evidence in front of it, or, for the petitioner, file the verified good-faith statement if the instrument is the problem.
  7. Know who will serve. Identify the preneed designee or the family member with priority, and be ready to show why that person is or is not contrary to the ward’s best interests.
  8. Watch the fees. Itemize. File the Rule 5.060 request for notice. Keep the bad-faith provisions in mind on both sides.
  9. After appointment, keep using the tools. Annual report objections, interim judicial review, removal, restoration, and complaints to the Office of Public and Professional Guardians.

10. The short version

  1. Guardianship procedure is mandatory, and most contested cases turn on whether it was followed.
  2. The examining committee reports are hearsay. A timely objection brings in the rules of evidence, which usually means the examiners have to testify.
  3. A valid power of attorney, health care surrogate, or trust can make a guardianship unnecessary, and the court must decide that question before appointing anyone.
  4. A preneed designation is presumptive. The court needs evidence, not friction, to bypass it.
  5. Family guardians get a presumption against removal on best-interests grounds. Professional guardians do not.
  6. Restoration is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court must hear it promptly.
  7. Fees come from the ward’s estate, with real exposure for bad-faith petitions and unreasonable fee requests.

Brice Zoecklein is the owner of Zoecklein Law, P.A., which handles guardianship, probate, trust, and inheritance litigation in Florida. This article is general information and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Guardianship law changes frequently; check current statutes, rules, and case law before relying on any authority cited here.

Authorities cited

Florida Supreme Court

Florida District Courts of Appeal

Statutes

Rules