Hardy Wallace, Etc. v. Mark Wallace, Etc.
Docket 3D2025-0545
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Probate
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 3D2025-0545
Appeal from the circuit court's order terminating a guardianship of the property (Rule 5.680) in Miami-Dade County
Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's termination of the guardianship of the property for ward Milton Wallace under Florida Probate Rule 5.680. Appellant Hardy Wallace argued co-guardians Mark Wallace and Angel Insua misrepresented the estate had no assets and that the guardianship was prematurely ended. The appellate court concluded Hardy failed to provide the trial hearing transcript, preventing review of factual findings, and applied the presumption that the trial court's factual determinations were correct. Because guardianship decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the court affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating the guardianship of Milton Wallace's property under Rule 5.680.
- Whether appellants could overturn the termination order without providing the hearing transcript to challenge the trial court's factual findings.
- Whether any alleged misrepresentations by co-guardians about the existence of assets justified reversal of the termination order.
Court's Reasoning
Guardianship termination decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appellate court applies a deferential standard to the trial court's factual findings. Because Hardy did not supply a transcript of the hearing, the appellate court could not evaluate the factual record or conclude the trial court erred. Precedent requires presuming the trial court's findings correct when no transcript is provided, so Hardy failed to meet the burden to show reversible error.
Authorities Cited
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Waldon v. Waldon305 So. 3d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Ash v. Ash332 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- In re Guardianship of Walpole639 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- White v. White717 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
Parties
- Appellant
- Hardy Wallace
- Appellee
- Mark Wallace
- Appellee
- Angel Insua
- Judge
- Jose L. Fernandez
- Attorney
- Michael J. Schlesinger (for appellant)
- Attorney
- Glen H. Waldman (for appellees)
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-05-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing motion for rehearing
If Hardy believes there are legal errors in the opinion, he may timely file a motion for rehearing in the Third District and must preserve the record that supports any argument.
- 2
Obtain and file hearing transcript if available
If a transcript exists, counsel should retrieve it and, if appropriate, seek rehearing or further review to allow the appellate court to consider the factual record.
- 3
Consult counsel about further appeal
Discuss the viability of a discretionary appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and whether the record and legal issues meet the criteria for review.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the guardianship of Milton Wallace's property.
- Why did the appeal fail?
- The appellant did not provide the transcript of the trial hearing, so the appellate court could not reexamine the trial court's factual findings and thus presumed those findings correct.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The co-guardians (Hardy Wallace, Mark Wallace, and Angel Insua) and the ward, Milton Wallace, are directly affected because the guardianship of property was terminated.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- A further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court may be possible, but the record and issues would need to meet jurisdictional requirements; failure to supply a hearing transcript would likely hamper further review.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 6, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D25-0545 & 25-0546
Lower Tribunal Nos. 24-3357-GD-02 & 20-1603-GD-02
________________
Hardy Wallace, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Mark Wallace, etc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.
Schlesinger Law Group, and Michael J. Schlesinger, for appellant.
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Glen H. Waldman, for appellees.
Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR JJ.
GORDO, J.
Hardy Wallace (“Hardy”) appeals the termination of the guardianship
of the property of Milton Wallace—the ward—pursuant to Rule 5.680, Florida
Probate Rules. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.170.
Hardy argues Mark Wallace and Angel Insua 1 misrepresented that the
guardianship had no assets and the trial court prematurely and improperly
discharged the guardians and terminated the guardianship of the property.
The trial court held a full hearing on this matter and made findings. But Hardy
provides no transcript of the hearing.
This Court has consistently applied a deferential standard to
guardianship decisions and the substantial burden placed on parties
challenging such orders, while applying a de novo standard to issues of law.
Waldon v. Waldon, 305 So. 3d 634, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Ash v. Ash,
332 So. 3d 563, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). A trial court’s order determining
whether to terminate a guardianship is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
In re Guardianship of Walpole, 639 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Applying the deferential standard to guardianship decisions and the
substantial burden placed on parties challenging such, we must presume the
trial court’s ruling is correct in the absence of the hearing transcript. See
1
Mark Wallace is Hardy’s brother. Angel Insua is Milton Wallace’s estate
manager, a position he has held for approximately thirty-two years. Both are
co-guardians with Hardy.
2
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
(“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not
properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial
court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.
Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court
reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to
require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the
record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate
reversible error.”); White v. White, 717 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
(“[Where] [t]here is no transcript of the hearing in the record before us . . . we
will not disturb the trial court’s finding.”).
Affirmed.
3