VERONICA TENZER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER

District Court of Appeal of Florida

VERONICA TENZER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER

240 So. 3d 754

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 2018

Docket17-0081

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 3d 754 (VERONICA TENZER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER) 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

VERONICA TENZER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER, 240 So. 3d 754 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

VERONICA TENZER, as Natural Parent and Guardian of the Property of H.T., a minor, as Interested Person, and sole child and heir of the Ward, Appellant,

v.

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER, Appellee.

No. 4D17-81

[March 21, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mark A. Speiser, Judge; L.T. Case No. PRC-15-000962.

Aaron V. Johnson of Collins, Brown, Barkett, Garavaglia & Lawn, Chartered, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Vincent E. Schindeler of Vincent E. Schindeler, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Veronica Tenzer, as natural parent and guardian of the property of her son, H.T., appeals a November 2016 final order approving a trust set up on behalf of her former husband. Appellant argues she was denied due process because she was not permitted to participate in the hearing seeking approval of the trust. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The record reflects that in September 2016, the circuit court entered an order striking Appellant from the trust proceeding because she was not an interested party. Appellant failed to timely appeal that order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h), (k) (2016). The September order striking Appellant as a party to the original trust proceeding was a final order because it removed Appellant from the action pertaining to the establishment of the trust. See, e.g., Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (en banc); Brogdon v. Guardianship of Brogdon, 553 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Appellant’s failure to appeal the September final order is a bar to any subsequent attempt to have us address whether she was an interested party to the original proceeding and, therefore, entitled to due process. Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal.

Dismissed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

VERONICA TENZER, as Natural Parent and Guardian of the Property of H.T., a minor, as Interested Person, and sole child and heir of the Ward, Appellant,

v.

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER, Appellee.

No. 4D17-81

[March 21, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mark A. Speiser, Judge; L.T. Case No. PRC-15-000962.

Aaron V. Johnson of Collins, Brown, Barkett, Garavaglia & Lawn, Chartered, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Vincent E. Schindeler of Vincent E. Schindeler, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Veronica Tenzer, as natural parent and guardian of the property of her son, H.T., appeals a November 2016 final order approving a trust set up on behalf of her former husband. Appellant argues she was denied due process because she was not permitted to participate in the hearing seeking approval of the trust. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The record reflects that in September 2016, the circuit court entered an order striking Appellant from the trust proceeding because she was not an interested party. Appellant failed to timely appeal that order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h), (k) (2016). The September order striking Appellant as a party to the original trust proceeding was a final order because it removed Appellant from the action pertaining to the establishment of the trust. See, e.g., Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (en banc); Brogdon v. Guardianship of Brogdon, 553 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Appellant’s failure to appeal the September final order is a bar to any subsequent attempt to have us address whether she was an interested party to the original proceeding and, therefore, entitled to due process. Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal.

Dismissed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 3d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veronica-tenzer-v-guardianship-of-stephen-michael-tenzer-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack