McCallum v. EHRISMAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCallum v. EHRISMAN

24 So. 3d 1270, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20731, 2009 WL 5151748

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2009

Docket1D08-2651

StatusPublished

This text of 24 So. 3d 1270 (McCallum v. EHRISMAN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCallum v. EHRISMAN, 24 So. 3d 1270, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20731, 2009 WL 5151748 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion for substitution of counsel because it is clear that, given the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See generally In re Guardianship of Bockmuller, 602 So.2d 608, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that, where the ward’s right to contract had been removed by an order determining incapacity, the ward had no power to contract with an attorney to represent her). Because appellant’s attorney was not legally authorized to represent her in either the trial court or this appeal, we dismiss the remaining issues raised by the attorney. See In re Guardianship of Graham, 963 So.2d 275, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion for substitution of counsel because it is clear that, given the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See generally In re Guardianship of Bockmuller, 602 So.2d 608, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that, where the ward’s right to contract had been removed by an order determining incapacity, the ward had no power to contract with an attorney to represent her). Because appellant’s attorney was not legally authorized to represent her in either the trial court or this appeal, we dismiss the remaining issues raised by the attorney. See In re Guardianship of Graham, 963 So.2d 275, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 So. 3d 1270, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20731, 2009 WL 5151748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccallum-v-ehrisman-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack