Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

against him in his individual capacity for lack of personal jurisdiction, as
he had never resided or owned property in Florida and the only contact or
dealings he had with brother in Florida were in his capacity as personal
representative of decedent’s estate or as director of the corporation.
Brother argued that Florida Probate Code § 734.201(3) conferred personal
jurisdiction upon friend. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and
friend appealed. On appeal, the court noted that procedurally, friend, in
his individual capacity, could not have been named a defendant in
brother’s counterclaim because his participation in the underlying case
was in his capacity as the personal representative of decedent’s estate, and
later as agent of son. Friend, individually, was never a named party. A
plaintiff who brings or maintains an action solely in his capacity as the
representative of another is not an “opposing party” against whom a
counterclaim might be filed. The court found that this basis alone merited
reversal. The court further found that there was no personal jurisdiction
over friend. Florida Probate Code § 734.201(3) provides that a foreign
personal representative submits personally to the jurisdiction of the courts
of Florida in any proceeding concerning the estate by doing any act as
personal representative in this state that would have given the state
jurisdiction over that person as an individual. The court found no basis for
brother’s assertion that by virtue of participating in a civil action in
capacities other than as an individual, friend submitted to the jurisdiction
of the court under the Probate Code. No ancillary estate was ever opened
in Florida and friend was never appointed a personal representative by a
Florida court. As a result, the court held that the requirements of personal
jurisdiction over friend were not met and the counterclaims filed against
him were dismissed.
Y. Judicial Appointment of Guardian: Petition: 5-303
1. *In re Guardianship of Samson, No. A11-2180, 2012 WL 2203010
(Minn. Ct. App. June 18, 2012). A Power of Attorney for Health Care
may be a less restrictive alternative to guardianship, rendering
guardianship unnecessary. In 1997, mother executed a Durable Power
of Attorney for Health Care designating daughter as her health-care agent.
Mother was subsequently determined to be incapacitated by dementia.
Son petitioned for guardianship of mother. The district court dismissed
son’s petition for guardianship on the ground that the health care power of
attorney rendered guardianship unnecessary. Minn. Stat. § 524.5-303
provides that a guardian may only be appointed by a court if it finds that
the respondent is an incapacitated person and that the respondent’s
identified needs cannot be met by less restrictive means. On appeal,
brother argued that appointment of a guardian was necessary because
daughter lives out of state for two months of the year, and thus, could not
adequately address mother’s needs. The court found that there was no
evidence showing that daughter was unavailable to fulfill her duties as
mother’s health care agent. The court also held that mother’s health care
20