Ripoll v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ripoll v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc.

963 So. 2d 789, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10977, 2007 WL 2043483

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2007

DocketNo. 3D07-711

StatusPublished

This text of 963 So. 2d 789 (Ripoll v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc.) 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

Ripoll v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc., 963 So. 2d 789, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10977, 2007 WL 2043483 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an adversary action in a guardianship proceeding [790]*790brought by the appellee Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. (“CPCS”) to remove the appellant/guardian, Alina Ripoll.¹ Ripoll is the successor guardian of the incapacitated ward, Caridad Asensio. CPCS is the guardian of Asensio’s assets.

It is alleged that Ripoll improperly took money from the guardianship to purchase a home for her personal use. In an attempt to protect the ward’s assets, the trial court ordered Ripoll in the presence of her husband, not to mortgage, hypothe-cate, or encumber this home in any way. Two days later, the Ripolls executed a mortgage on the home.

CPCS moved to remove Ripoll as guardian for violating the court’s order. The court directed the parties to attend a hearing on the matter, and ordered Ripoll to bring any and all documentation she had which would reflect the location of the proceeds from the mortgage. Ripoll appeared before the court on the directed day, invoked a Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to produce any documents or answer any questions about the mortgage. As a result, the trial court froze all of the Ripolls’ assets. They instituted this appeal. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and affirm the order under review.

A circuit court has the inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and to take action it deems necessary to preserve the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries. See In re: Estate of Barsanti, 773 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). To that end, the court:

has the authority to issue temporary injunctions freezing assets claimed to belong to [a guardianship], even though ultimate ownership of those assets may be in dispute. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Barsanti, 773 So.2d at 1208. Because we find that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion appellate court will not disturb trial court’s decision in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunction).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an adversary action in a guardianship proceeding [790]*790brought by the appellee Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. (“CPCS”) to remove the appellant/guardian, Alina Ripoll.¹ Ripoll is the successor guardian of the incapacitated ward, Caridad Asensio. CPCS is the guardian of Asensio’s assets.

It is alleged that Ripoll improperly took money from the guardianship to purchase a home for her personal use. In an attempt to protect the ward’s assets, the trial court ordered Ripoll in the presence of her husband, not to mortgage, hypothe-cate, or encumber this home in any way. Two days later, the Ripolls executed a mortgage on the home.

CPCS moved to remove Ripoll as guardian for violating the court’s order. The court directed the parties to attend a hearing on the matter, and ordered Ripoll to bring any and all documentation she had which would reflect the location of the proceeds from the mortgage. Ripoll appeared before the court on the directed day, invoked a Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to produce any documents or answer any questions about the mortgage. As a result, the trial court froze all of the Ripolls’ assets. They instituted this appeal. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and affirm the order under review.

A circuit court has the inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and to take action it deems necessary to preserve the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries. See In re: Estate of Barsanti, 773 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). To that end, the court:

has the authority to issue temporary injunctions freezing assets claimed to belong to [a guardianship], even though ultimate ownership of those assets may be in dispute. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Barsanti, 773 So.2d at 1208. Because we find that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm. See Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion appellate court will not disturb trial court’s decision in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunction).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 So. 2d 789, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10977, 2007 WL 2043483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripoll-v-comprehensive-personal-care-services-inc-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack