VERONICA TENZER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF STEPHEN MICHAEL TENZER ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •        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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-0081

Filed Date: 3/21/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021