Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson (2006)

The court thus held "that in guardianship proceedings concerning attorney's fees under section 744.108, the only persons entitled to standing are the attorney making the fee request, the guardian, the ward, and those 'interested persons' who have filed written requests for notice under Florida Probate Rule 5.060." Id. at 509.

“Thus, unlike a ward, a guardian, or next of kin, who are specific persons occupying finate, statutorily defined roles, the definition of 2 The definition of “interested party” has since been renumbered to section 731.201(23). 9 “interested person” requires the trial court to evaluate the nature of both the proceeding and the interest asserted.” Hayes, 952 So. 2d at 507 (footnote omitted).

See Hayes, 952 So.2d at 505 ("[S]tanding to bring or participate in a particular legal proceeding often depends on the nature of the interest asserted."); id. at 508 (rejecting "bright-line rule" adopted by district court that would preclude an heir from participating in a proceeding for guardian fees or attorney fees).

By statutorily defining an “interested person” as including any person “who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” the Florida Probate Code, through *878 section 731.201(21), Florida Statutes (2014), sought to “incorporate[] the general standing principles.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 507-08 (Fla.2006).

Standing “Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Shriberg v. Fla. Flooring, Inc., 2026 WL 60973 , at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 7, 2026) (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006)).

Otherwise, the right to receive notice or file an objection would be meaningless.” Id. at 506. “[C]ourts must scrupulously oversee the handling of the affairs of incompetent persons under their jurisdiction and err on the side of over- supervising rather than indifference.” Id. at 508 (quoting Bachinger v. Sunbank/ S. Florida, N.A., 675 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings . . . .” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

We now address each error in turn. “[Standing to bring or participate in a particular legal proceeding often depends on the nature of the interest asserted.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006). 1 An interested person may seek revocation of probate.

Standing "requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly." Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

Sections 744.367(3) and (4) provide that the guardian shall serve the guardianship annual report “to any other person as the court may direct” and “[w]ithin 30 days after the annual report has been filed, any interested person ... may file written objections to any element of the report, specifying the nature of the objection.” Whether Matthias Trost had standing to participate in the guardianship proceeding depends on whether he qualified as an “interested person.” See Haye…

See Hayes, 952 So.2d at 505 (“[Sjtanding to bring or participate in a particular legal proceeding often depends on the nature of the interest asserted.”).

As a general proposition, “[standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); see also Hutchison v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 922 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gen.

As a general proposition, “[sjtanding is a legal concept that requires *1083 a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); see also Hutchison v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 922 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gen.

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) (“In guardianship proceedings, the overwhelming public policy is the protection of the ward.”); Ash v. Ash, 332 So. 3d 563 , 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) (citations omitted).

Legal Analysis “Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

The meaning, 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. § 731.201(23), Fla. Stat. In accord with this definition, ascertaining whether an individual is an interested person “requires the trial court to evaluate the nature of both the proceeding[s] and the interest asserted.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 507 (Fla. 2006).

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

However, not “every personal representative from every prior will should be granted standing . . . . [T]he definition of ‘interested person’ is fluid and ‘must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.” Id. (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 507 (Fla. 2006)).

However, not “every personal representative from every prior will should be granted standing . . . . [T]he definition of ‘interested person’ is fluid and ‘must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.” Id. (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 507 (Fla. 2006).

We have established in Romano v. Olshen, 153 So. 3d 912, 918-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (alterations in original), that the most important part of guardianship law is the protection of the ward: 3 The “overwhelming” public policy of guardianship law “is the protection of the ward.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).

Guardianships “are governed by a comprehensive statutory code and set of procedural rules.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006).7 Florida guardianship law defines 6.

See generally Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) ("Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly."); cf. Ghali v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 1386, 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("[Appellant] lacks the requisite standing to appeal the denial of a nonparty's motion to quash substitute service of process.").

Dr. Ira Gessner is a former member of the CMS Network Advisory Council who participated in the development of the Rule, served as a CMS statewide consultant for over 38 years and currently serves as a member of the CMS Cardiac Technical Advisory Panel. 15 Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1079, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Hayes v. G’ship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2007)).

Referring to the Florida Supreme Court decision in Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 508 (Fla.2006), we explained that “there is no bright-line rule.

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

Guardianship as an Equitable Proceeding The “overwhelming” public policy of guardianship law “is the protection of the ward.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

Generally, standing “requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); see generally Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654, 662 (Fla.1980) (“[T]his Court has long been committed to the rule that a party does not. possess standing to sue unless he or she can demonstrate a direct and articulable stake in the…

Gladstone Associates, Inc., 823 So.2d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), we dismissed Ms. Penabad’s appeal after determining that “she had no ownership interest in the subject property because she had executed a quit claim deed transferring her interests to a third party.” “Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardians…

To establish standing, a party must “demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

Generally, standing "requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly." Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

Generally, standing “requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006).

In Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 507 (Fla.2006), the Supreme Court recognized a fluid definition of "interested person" that "may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and matter involved in, any proceedings." [2] The Court described standing as "a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly…

Fla., N.A. v. Krause, 87 So.3d 25, 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)); see also Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006) (holding that standing "requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly”).

See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 78 So. 3d 1305, 1314 (Fla. 2012) (holding a litigant has standing if “he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly” (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006))).

See Peace River/Manasota Reg’l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1079, 1082-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[S]tanding is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.” (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006))).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2006) (holding that the next of kin of the ward have standing to participate in proceedings for the award of attorney’s fees in guardianship as interested persons if they have filed a request for notice of proceedings pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.060).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 508 (Fla.2006).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 507-08 (Fla.2006).

See, e.g., Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498 , 509 n. 14 (Fla.2006) (chutzpah); Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So.2d 1195 , 1197 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (same); Price v. Gray’s Guard Service, Inc., 298 So.2d 461, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (intestinal fortitude). 1 .

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006); In re Guardianship of Fuqua, 646 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Sun Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones, 645 So.2d 1008, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2006); In re Guardianship of Fuqua, 646 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Sun Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones, 645 So.2d 1008, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

See Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498 (Fla.2006) (holding that family members of the ward do not have standing to participate in guardianship proceedings concerning attorney's fees under section 744.108, Florida Statutes (2009), unless they have filed a written Request for Notice under Florida Probate Rule 5.060).