Loading…
4 verbatim mandatory provisions from 04-27-b.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. • PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP - FILING OF SEPARATE GUARDIANSHIP CASES FOR MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME FAMILY _____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, there are occasions in which petitioners in guardianship cases seek to have a guardian appointed for more than one individual in the same family, particularly in cases in which a guardian must be appointed for more than one minor based on facts common to the minors; and WHEREAS, confusion on the part of the Clerk and the Court often results from having multiple wards in a single case because (a) only one of the wards may be the subject of certain motions and orders; • (b) because the wards must often be treated differently because of their individual circumstances; • In those cases in which Petitions for Appointment of a Guardian are filed for more than one member of the same family, a separate petition shall be required for each prospective ward and a separate guardianship file shall be opened for each prospective ward. 2. • Nothing in this order shall preclude or prevent the presiding judge of the guardianship division from coordinating hearings in -- 1 of 2 -- 2 such separately filed cases so that issues common to such cases within a single family can be heard and resolved in a single hearing.
PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP - FILING OF SEPARATE GUARDIANSHIP CASES FOR MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME FAMILY _____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, there are occasions in which petitioners in guardianship cases seek to have a guardian appointed for more than one individual in the same family, particularly in cases in which a guardian must be appointed for more than one minor based on facts common to the minors; and WHEREAS, confusion on the part of the Clerk and the Court often results from having multiple wards in a single case because (a) only one of the wards may be the subject of certain motions and orders;
Reviewer note: Document sha256: e048ddbca8a70c3afcf336de2a95e442a672a82ea0067e66cd5485b2192ea484 (87883 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it. | Scope corrected 2026-08-03: the 18th numbers county-specific orders with -b (Brevard) and -s (Seminole); unsuffixed orders are circuit-wide. This rule was bulk-tagged to one county at harvest; the court's own numbering convention now controls.
Judge Costello's AI section simply restates amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) — the post-AOSC26-12 statewide standard — a compliance model, not a local mandate: signers certify cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with the rule's own sanctions.
The strongest in-the-wild confirmation of the 2026 statewide AI rule: Judge Bantner's page expressly states his prior AI requirements are REMOVED because of the May 28, 2026 amendment of Rule 2.515 — signing a filing now itself certifies the authorities exist and are accurately cited.