Summary
In Weiser v. Weiser, 137 So.3d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the appellate court affirmed an order requiring a co-guardian to return $15,200 to a guardianship account, rejecting her unpreserved due process claim. The appellant had notice that the funds would be discussed, the motion included a general prayer for “any other relief,” and she failed to object, so the trial court’s ruling did not constitute fundamental error. The decision clarifies that fundamental error is error that goes to the heart of the trial and vitiates its fairness, and that a party’s notice and opportunity to be heard can defeat a due process challenge even when specific relief was not expressly requested.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court denied Appellant due process by ordering relief (return of transferred funds) that had not been specifically requested in the motion, and if so, whether the error was fundamental.
Holdings
- The trial court did not deny Appellant due process. Appellant had notice that the issue would be discussed, the motion requested 'any other relief the court deems appropriate and just,' and Appellant failed to object to the ruling. Therefore, no due process violation occurred, and there was no fundamental error. The unpreserved argument cannot be reversed.
Key quotations
“Fundamental error occurs when the error goes 'to the heart of a trial and vitiate[s] its fairness ....'” (546-47)
“Appellant was clearly put on notice that the issue of the $15,200 would be discussed at the hearing (as the transfer of these funds was specifically referenced in the Amended Motion to Ratify Distributions and Other Relief).” (547)
“The request for relief asked for approval of the expenditures and 'any other relief the court deems appropriate and just.'” (547)
Factual background
Lawrence Taube was the former plenary guardian of Appellant's mother before Appellant and her brother, Appellee Sandy Weiser, became co-guardians in January 2013. In an effort to complete his duties as guardian, Taube prepared and filed a final report, including a final accounting. Taube then filed an Amended Motion to Ratify Distributions and Other Relief pursuant to the Office of Clerk and Comptroller's request, seeking approval of expenditures and disbursements, including $15,200 in transfers from one guardianship account to another titled in the names of Appellant and her mother. No claim was presented that the $15,200 was used for any purpose other than the care of the mother. The trial court took issue with spending on items and doctors of questionable benefit and ordered the entire $15,200 returned to the guardianship account from which it was taken.
Procedural history
Lawrence Taube, former plenary guardian of Appellant's mother, filed a final report and an Amended Motion to Ratify Distributions and Other Relief. Appellant and her brother became co-guardians in January 2013. The trial court ordered Appellant to return $15,200 to the guardianship account. Appellant appealed this non-final order.