Associate Attorney
In Cruz v. Waishkey (In re: Guardianship of James Vincent Cruz), 50 Fla. L. Weekly 2511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), the appellate court addressed a procedural misstep that can derail guardianship cases if courts treat partial dismissals as final endings.
The case involved parents who initially filed a joint petition seeking a determination of incapacity and appointment of a guardian for their adult son, who had non-verbal autism. Over time, the parents’ relationship deteriorated, and the proceedings fractured procedurally. The husband dismissed his portion of the incapacity petition and further petitioned for appointment of a guardian advocate, a form of guardianship designed for individuals with developmental disabilities. The wife sought dismissal of her husband’s guardianship applications, while simultaneously counter-petitioning for appointment as guardian advocate and subsequently dismissing her portion of the incapacity petition.
The trial court treated the dismissal of the parties’ joint incapacity petition as dispositive and concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction to act further in the case. It dismissed the remaining proceedings on that basis.
The appellate court reversed.
The district court explained that jurisdiction does not vanish simply because one component of a multi-petition guardianship case is dismissed. Where other petitions remain pending—such as petitions for guardian advocate appointment—there is still judicial labor to be performed. The trial court therefore retained jurisdiction and was required to adjudicate the remaining requests.
The appellate court’s ruling highlighted the importance of courts examining the entire procedural posture of the case, not just whether one pleading has been withdrawn.
Practice pointers
Guardianship cases are not single-pleading matters. Dismissal of one petition does not automatically dispose of all related proceedings.
Identify remaining judicial labor before assuming a case is over. If any petition remains unresolved, the court retains jurisdiction.
Guardian advocate petitions stand independently. Even when incapacity determinations are withdrawn, guardian advocate proceedings may still require adjudication.
Be cautious with strategic dismissals. Withdrawing a petition may narrow the case, but it will not necessarily terminate it.
Takeaway: In guardianship proceedings, courts must look at what remains—not just what has been dismissed. If judicial labor is still required, the case continues.
Guardianship and incapacity matters often involve evolving family dynamics and layered filings. We help clients and counsel navigate procedural turns without losing jurisdiction or momentum.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.