Thomas J. Foster, Sr. v. Christa Radulovich, the Emergency Temporary Guardian

No. 2D20-2988 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 29, 2021) · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · September 29, 2021 · No. No. 2D20-2988

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal treated a petition for writ of mandamus as a petition for writ of certiorari and granted relief. The court held that an alleged incapacitated person has a statutory right under section 744.331(2)(b), Florida Statutes, to substitute appointed counsel with counsel of choice during incapacity proceedings, even when an emergency temporary guardianship delegated the person's general right to contract. The court quashed the trial court's order denying the substitution of counsel and striking counsel's notice of appearance.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Writing for the Court
Atkinson, Judge; Lucas, Judge; Rothstein-Youakim, Judge
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
September 29, 2021
Docket number
No. 2D20-2988
Procedural posture
Thomas J. Foster, Sr. petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to substitute privately selected counsel for court-appointed counsel in guardianship proceedings. The district court treated the petition as one for writ of certiorari and granted relief.
Standard of review
Certiorari review requires a departure from the essential requirements of law, material injury for the remainder of the proceedings, and harm that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. The court first examines the second and third prongs, commonly described as irreparable harm, to determine certiorari jurisdiction.
Precedential value
Published intermediate appellate opinion; precedential value subject to official publication.
Parties
Thomas J. Foster, Sr., an alleged incapacitated person v. Christa Radulovich, the emergency temporary guardian, Susan Foster Melendy, Thomas J. Foster, Jr., Sharon Roper
Disposition
quashed

Topics

guardianshipswrit of certiorariappellate jurisdictionstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

guardianshipappellate procedurestatutory interpretationcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had certiorari jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of Foster's motion to substitute counsel.
  2. Whether an alleged incapacitated person subject to an emergency temporary guardianship may exercise the statutory right to substitute court-appointed counsel with counsel of the person's choice before incapacity is adjudicated.
  3. Whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying Foster's motion to substitute counsel and striking counsel's notice of appearance.

Holdings

  1. An erroneous denial of a motion to substitute counsel causes irreparable harm that supports certiorari jurisdiction because deprivation of the litigant's chosen counsel for the duration of the proceeding cannot be remedied by a later appeal.
  2. An alleged incapacitated person may substitute personally selected counsel for court-appointed counsel during proceedings to determine incapacity until the trial court determines incapacity by clear and convincing evidence.
  3. Although an emergency temporary guardianship may remove or delegate the alleged incapacitated person's general right to contract when that authority is specifically conferred by court order, it may not remove the alleged incapacitated person's statutory right to contract with and substitute counsel under section 744.331(2)(b).

Key quotations

Thus, while section 744.3031(1) is broad enough to allow removal of the right to contract generally, section 744.331(2)b effectively prohibits the trial court from removing the alleged incapacitated person's right to contract with an attorney. (at 8)
A person subject to an emergency temporary guardianship remains an alleged incapacitated person until such time as he is adjudicated incapacitated and is free to exercise all rights not otherwise delegated to a guardian pursuant to an emergency temporary guardianship, including the right to substitute counsel. (at 10-11)

Factual background

DCF initiated guardianship proceedings alleging that Foster was incapacitated and seeking appointment of a plenary guardian. During the proceedings, the trial court appointed an emergency temporary guardian over Foster's property and delegated his right to contract. Foster nevertheless met with attorney J. Ronald Denman and expressed his desire to have Denman represent him in place of court-appointed counsel. The trial court denied substitution, entered amended emergency temporary guardianship letters nunc pro tunc, and struck Denman's notice of appearance.

Procedural history

The Department of Children and Families filed a petition to determine Foster's incapacity and appoint a plenary guardian. The trial court appointed counsel for Foster and later appointed Christa Radulovich as emergency temporary guardian over Foster's property, with letters delegating his right to contract. Foster sought to substitute attorney J. Ronald Denman as his counsel; the trial court denied the motion, entered amended emergency temporary guardianship letters nunc pro tunc, and struck Denman's notice of appearance. The district court granted certiorari and quashed the order.

Remand instructions

The writ of certiorari was granted and the trial court's order denying Foster's motion to substitute counsel was quashed. No further specific remand instructions were stated.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…