## Facts

- Brian David Walpole, a mentally disabled adult, lived in Florida with his mother until her death in a 1979 Florida automobile accident that also injured him.
- Walpole received approximately $300,000 from related litigation; the funds were placed in a Florida guardianship property account administered by First Union National Bank, later exceeding $305,000.
- Walpole’s mother also created a testamentary trust for his benefit with corpus exceeding $264,000, likewise administered by First Union.
- After the mother’s death, Walpole’s uncle removed him to Wales without prior Florida court approval; in the United Kingdom, the Public Trustee assumed responsibility for supervising Walpole’s financial affairs and care.
- The Public Trustee petitioned a Florida probate court to terminate the Florida guardianship of Walpole’s property and transfer the guardianship assets to the United Kingdom under section 744.524, Florida Statutes (1991).
- The Public Trustee asserted that transfer would place funds closer to Walpole, reduce administrative costs, and eliminate U.S. taxation, and did not allege or prove mismanagement by First Union.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court denied termination, reasoning that keeping both the guardianship account and testamentary trust under one institution reduced risk of miscommunication and better served Walpole’s welfare.
- The Public Trustee appealed the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether section 744.524, Florida Statutes (1991), requires termination of a Florida guardianship of the property upon a ward’s change of domicile and appointment/qualification of a foreign fiduciary.
2. Whether a probate court retains discretion to deny termination based on countervailing factors bearing on the ward’s best interests.
3. Whether the probate court abused its discretion in refusing to terminate the guardianship and transfer the Florida assets abroad.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying termination of the Florida guardianship of the property.
- Section 744.524 does not mandate termination or create a presumption favoring termination upon a change of domicile.
- The probate court may consider countervailing factors and decide, in its discretion, whether termination serves the ward’s best interests.
- The probate court did not abuse its discretion in keeping the guardianship in Florida where a single institution managed both the guardianship funds and the related testamentary trust and there was no showing of mismanagement.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of a Florida guardianship of the property following a ward’s relocation is discretionary under section 744.524 and is not automatic upon change of domicile and appointment of a foreign fiduciary.
- The controlling consideration in guardianship administration is the ward’s welfare and best interests.
- A probate court may deny termination when countervailing factors indicate that continued Florida administration better protects the ward, including risks created by fragmented or split management of interrelated assets.
- Appellate review of a termination decision under these circumstances is for abuse of discretion; the trial court’s findings will be upheld if supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court held that a ward’s move to a foreign jurisdiction does not compel termination of a Florida property guardianship; instead, the probate court may deny termination when the record supports that continuing Florida administration better serves the ward’s best interests, particularly where unified management of guardianship and trust assets reduces practical risks.


In re Guardianship of Walpole, 639 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)