Veronica Y. Morrison v. in Re: Estate of Juanita T. Brown-Mason

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 20, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-2456
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 20, 2026. ________________

No. 3D25-2456 Lower Tribunal No. 09-1868-CP-02 ________________

Veronica Y. Morrison, Appellant,

vs.

In Re: Estate of Juanita T. Brown-Mason, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Nushin G. Sayfie, Judge.

Veronica Y. Morrison, in proper person.

Irama Valdes, P.A., and Irama Valdes and Alexis Sanchez, for appellees.

Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Veronica Y. Morrison, pro se, appeals a November 19, 2025

probate court order that granted Curator Irama Valdes’s petition for final distribution and discharged Valdes from all duties as to the Estate of Juanita

T. Brown-Mason.

This Estate has had a long and tortuous history since the decedent’s

death in 2008. Morrison was the initial personal representative, and an initial

final order of discharge was entered in 2010, after Morrison swore, under

penalty of perjury, that the Estate had been fully administered.

Then, thirteen years later, in 2023, the Estate was reopened after the

decedent’s grandson – claiming he had been excluded from the initial

probate proceedings – petitioned the probate court to reopen it. The probate

court initially appointed the grandson as the personal representative in these

renewed proceedings, but in 2024, it appointed attorney Irama Valdes as the

Estate’s Curator.

In these re-opened proceedings, Morrison made several unsuccessful

attempts to admit a purportedly lost or destroyed will that specifically

provided that Morrison and her sister would inherit the Estate, while the

grandson would inherit only a piece of jewelry. Morrison also challenged the

probate proceedings suggesting that, because the decedent, Juanita T.

Brown was known also as “Juanita T. Brown-Mason” the probate

proceedings are somehow unauthorized. Following the Curator’s full

administration of the re-opened Estate, the probate court entered the

2 challenged November 19, 2025 order discharging the Curator and again

closing the Estate. Morrison timely appealed this final order.

On appeal, Morrison reiterates her arguments that the probate

proceedings were unauthorized because the decedent was known by a

different name. Morrison also asserts that a clerk’s default somehow

required the probate court to admit and validate what Morrison characterized

as the decedent’s lost or destroyed will. Further, Morrison asserts, without

factual support, that the Curator acted fraudulently and failed to provide

proper notice. Morrison makes blanket assertions, again without factual

support, that the probate court failed to protect Morrison as a “vulnerable

adult.” Additionally, Morrison argues that periods of “inactivity” somehow

deprived the probate court of jurisdiction. Finally, Morrison makes conclusory

assertions of malicious prosecution, judicial bias, and systemic due process

violations.

Upon our careful review of the record on appeal and the parties’

briefing, we find no reversible error in the challenged order and affirm the

order in all respects. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by this Court.

Affirmed.1

1 During the course of this appeal, Morrison filed multiple motions alleging violations of, and entitlement to, certain accommodations pursuant to, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Morrison has also sought an order

3 sanctioning the lower court clerk for not timely transmitting the record on appeal to this Court. We deny, as moot, all of Morrison’s pending motions.