Ricardo R. Corona v. in Re: Orlando Silva

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1985
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1985 Lower Tribunal No. 23-202-GD-02 ________________

Ricardo R. Corona, et al., Appellants,

vs.

In Re: Orlando Silva, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo Corona, Ricardo M. Corona and Nina Tarafa, for appellants.

Silva & Silva, P.A., and Paul Jon Layne, for appellees.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS, and LINDSEY, JJ.

SCALES, C.J. Appellants Richard R. Corona and Corona Law Firm, P.A. (together

“Corona”) moved, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, to intervene

in the guardianship proceedings of Dr. Orlando Silva (the “Ward”). Corona’s

objective was to have the guardianship court revisit an earlier order declaring

the Ward incompetent to testify as a witness. Such a ruling, according to

Corona, would allow Corona to depose the Ward in a separate defamation

action pending in the circuit court’s civil division, brought against Corona by

the Ward’s guardian. On October 31, 2024, the guardianship court

summarily denied Corona’s intervention motion, and Corona timely appealed

this final order.

We review a final order denying a motion to intervene for abuse of

discretion. Merrick Park, LLC v. Garcia, 299 So. 3d 1096, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA

2019). Corona sought to have the guardianship court cede to the trial court

in the defamation case the guardianship court’s authority over the Ward’s

welfare, specifically the issue of whether the Ward had capacity to be a

witness in a legal proceeding. The guardianship court, however, has the

primary responsibility and wide latitude to protect a ward. See Hayes v.

Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) (“In

guardianship proceedings, the overwhelming public policy is the protection

of the ward.”); Ash v. Ash, 332 So. 3d 563, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). The

2 guardianship court is in a better position than the defamation court to

determine whether the Ward is competent to testify as a witness. Under the

facts and circumstances presented in this case, we discern no abuse of

discretion in the guardianship court’s denial of Corona’s intervention motion.

Furthermore, Corona sought to intervene in the guardianship

proceeding under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230. Florida’s civil

procedure rules, though, apply to guardianship proceedings only as

expressly provided in the Florida Probate Rules. Fla. Prob. R. 5.010 (“The

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided herein.”) (emphasis

added). The only Florida Probate Rule potentially incorporating rule 1.230 is

rule 5.025(d)(2), which states that the rules of civil procedure apply in an

adversary probate proceeding. See Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins.

Co., 211 So. 3d 240, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Hence, for the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to have applied to the

guardianship proceeding – such that Corona’s intervention motion would

have been cognizable by the guardianship court – it was incumbent upon

Corona to have the guardianship proceeding declared as an “adversary”

proceeding, as contemplated in rule 5.025(b). Because Corona did not do

this, the trial court did not err in denying Corona’s intervention motion.

Affirmed.