Guardianship of Luczka v. Bahamonde

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guardianship of Luczka v. Bahamonde

837 So. 2d 1163, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2168

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 2003·No. Nos. 3D02-1208, 3D02-1209·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Despite the appellant’s arguments to the contrary, we conclude that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence showing the appellant totally incapacitated, and therefore directing a plenary guardianship. See Poteat v. Guardianship of Poteat, 771 So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (stating that in guardianship cases: “[t]he function of the appellate court is to determine whether there is ‘substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of clear and convincing evidence.’ ” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the orders under review.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Despite the appellant’s arguments to the contrary, we conclude that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence showing the appellant totally incapacitated, and therefore directing a plenary guardianship. See Poteat v. Guardianship of Poteat, 771 So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (stating that in guardianship cases: “[t]he function of the appellate court is to determine whether there is ‘substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of clear and convincing evidence.’ ” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the orders under review.

Affirmed.

Guardianship of Luczka v. Bahamonde, 837 So. 2d 1163, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2168 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

837 So. 2d 1163 (Guardianship of Luczka v. Bahamonde) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related