A Florida court has ruled against Lesa Martino in two appeals related to guardianship fees for her father, Ronald T. Martino. The District Court of Appeal of Florida decided that Martino lacked the standing to object to the fee petitions filed by her father's former guardian and her attorney. This ruling has implications for guardianship proceedings in Florida, particularly concerning who qualifies as an 'interested person' in such cases.
The case, known as Lesa Martino v. Guardianship of Roland T. Martino, was filed under docket number 2D19-0533. The court's opinion was issued on July 8, 2020, as part of a consolidated appeal that also included case number 2D19-670. The ruling was made by Judge Sleet, with Judges Casanueva concurring and Atkinson dissenting.
The dispute began when Lesa Martino challenged two orders from the trial court regarding guardianship proceedings for her father, who is considered incapacitated. In the first appeal, Martino objected to fee petitions submitted by Carol Colombo, the former guardian, and her attorney, James S. Eggert. In the second appeal, she contested an order requiring her to pay attorney fees as a sanction for filing objections without standing. The court consolidated these appeals for consideration.
In February 2017, Carol Colombo was appointed as the plenary guardian of Ronald T. Martino. However, the relationship between Colombo and Martino quickly deteriorated. Martino frequently contacted Colombo with complaints about the care facility where her father resided, attempted to relocate him without permission, and defied court orders, including a gag order prohibiting her from posting about the facility on social media. Colombo ultimately resigned in December 2017, citing Martino's behavior as a primary reason for her decision.
After Colombo's resignation, both she and her attorney filed petitions for payment of their fees. Martino objected to these petitions, claiming the fees were unreasonable and that the work performed was not valid. The trial court ruled that Martino was not an 'interested person' as defined by Florida law, which meant she did not have the standing to object to the fee petitions. The court cited the case Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, which established that the definition of 'interested person' can vary based on the circumstances of each case.
The court stated, "the record in this case is replete with examples of [Martino's] interfering with the administration of the guardianship and the care of the Ward resulting in unnecessary expense to the guardianship estate." This ruling affirmed that Martino's own actions had compromised her status as an interested person.
In the second appeal, Martino challenged the trial court's decision to impose sanctions against her for filing objections to the fee petitions. The court ruled that Martino should have known her objections were without merit based on the prior ruling regarding her lack of standing. The trial court found that Martino's behavior toward both Colombo and her successor guardian, Traci Samuel, was disruptive and harmful to the guardianship process.
The court noted, "Martino knew or should have known, based on the Court's ruling and order concerning Lesa Martino's lack of interested person status, that the same statutory principles and pertinent case law apply with equal force to the fee petition filed by [Attorney Dao] for [Samuel]." This led to the imposition of $1,800 in attorney fees against Martino as a sanction for her actions.
The ruling carries significant implications for future guardianship proceedings in Florida. It clarifies the definition of 'interested person' and reinforces the idea that a person's conduct can affect their standing in such cases. This decision may influence how courts handle similar disputes in the future, particularly regarding the rights of family members in guardianship matters.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Martino will appeal the court's decision further. There may be related cases pending, but details were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case highlights the complexities of guardianship laws and the importance of adhering to court orders and procedures.