STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND
PROFESSIONAL GUARDIANS,

DOAH Case No.: 18-0811
OPPG Case No.: 2016-003

Petitioner,
vs.
ELIZABETH SELDEN SAVITT,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.206, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 1.370, Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure, Petitioner hereby responds to Respondent’s First Request for Admissions as
follows:
1.

Admit that only two (2) court orders were signed by Judge Colin, not six (6), in

guardianship cases in Palm Beach County in which Respondent was the guardian.
Response:
Admitted that Judge Colin signed at least two (2) court orders approving annual plans for
wards to which was appointed to. Otherwise, denied as phrased. Petitioner objects to this
request, as it is unclear whether it contemplates guardian advocate cases, or instances wherein
Judge Colin signed orders in cases in which Respondent was subsequently appointed after the
matter was transferred to another judge.

2.

Admit that the (2) court orders referenced above were perfunctory orders signed

Filed June 14, 2018 1:56 PM Division of Administrative Hearings

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 2
June 14, 2018

by Judge Colin in chambers without Respondent in appearance before the court.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request, as it fails to identify with specificity the two (2) orders
referenced.

Admitted that Judge Colin signed two (2) orders approving annual plans

submitted by, or on behalf of, the Respondent, as indicated in Respondent’s discovery
responses. Denied that such orders are properly classified as “perfunctory”. It is presently
unknown to Petitioner whether these orders were signed in chambers and without any court
appearance, as Petitioner has not yet taken Respondent’s deposition.

3.

Admit that just because a Judge signs a perfunctory order on a case that does

not make the judge the presiding judge.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request, as the term “presiding judge” is ambiguous and susceptible to
multiple connotations without further context. Petitioner also objects to Respondent’s use of
the word “perfunctory”, assuming Respondent is referring to the issuance of an order
approving a guardian, or guardian advocate’s, annual plan for a ward.

4.

Admit that Respondent never appeared before Judge Colin.

Response:
Denied as phrased. Petitioner does not yet have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny
whether Respondent ever physically appeared in Judge Colin’s courtroom or chambers, in her
capacity as a guardian or guardian advocate, in a proceeding that was being adjudicated by
Judge Colin, and will explore this issue with Respondent at her deposition.

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 3
June 14, 2018

5.

Admit that there is no law which requires a guardian to disclose a marriage to a

judge who is not presiding over any of the guardian’s cases.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Petitioner also
objects to this request as it is unclear, based on the wording of this request and the context
provided by the preceding requests, as to what Respondent considers to be a “presiding judge”.
Admitted that there is no law that expressly requires a guardian to make the disclosure
referenced by this request in each and every context; however, it is denied that such a
disclosure is not required if the marriage at issue has the potential to create any conflicts of
interest that may potentially impact the handling of the guardian’s cases. Section 744.309(3),
Florida Statutes, provides that a “court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance
in which a conflict of interest may occur”. See also, §744.446, Fla. Stat.

6.

Admit that respondent was always represented by counsel.

Response:
Denied as phrased. Admitted that Florida law requires that guardians for wards be represented
by an attorney. Admitted that Petitioner does not know of any guardianship case, in which
Respondent was appointed as a guardian, where she was not also represented by counsel.

7.

Admit that there is no legal duty for a professional guardian personally, when

represented by counsel, to file any disclosures in the case.

Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Petitioner also

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 4
June 14, 2018

objects to this request on grounds that it unclear if the word “file” is meant to limit the scope
of a professional guardian’s actions contemplated by the request. Denied that the retention of
an attorney absolves a professional guardian of their obligation to comply with laws applicable
to their profession.

8.

Admit that Judge Colin did not ever appoint Respondent as guardian on any case.

Response:
Admitted that, at the present time, Petitioner has no evidence of Judge Colin signing an order
appointing Respondent as a ward’s guardian.

9.

Admit that a guardian has no legal duty to monitor or comment on the manner

in which judges transfer cases between themselves.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Admitted that there is
no Florida law expressly establishing such a duty; however, a guardian may potentially violate
other applicable duties if the guardian knows, or should know, that they are the beneficiary of
irregularly transferred cases and fail to take any action in response.

10.

Admit that there is no legal authority granting the Clerk IG the power to

determine the validity of how transfers of cases between judges should occur.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion.

11.

Admit that compensation to the Respondent was ordered by a judge in the case

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 5
June 14, 2018

referenced in Paragraph 25 of your Complaint.
Response:
Admitted that a judge signed an agreed order authorizing the payment of the referenced
compensation to Respondent in response to Respondent’s petition seeking payment.

12.

Admit that Fla. Stat. 744.309(3) took effect on March 10, 2016, and was not

retroactive.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Denied that the
statutory language cited was not codified in Chapter 744 prior to March 10, 2016.

13.

Admit that Fla. Stat. 744.309(3) does not impose a duty on Respondent to

disclose anything.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion.

14.

Admit that all allegations in the Complaint occurred prior to March 10, 2016.

Response:
Denied.

15.

Admit that removal of a guardian can only take place in court pursuant to

Florida Statute 744.474 and Fla. Probate Rule 5.660.

Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Admitted that the

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 6
June 14, 2018

cited sections pertain to the removal of a guardian from a given case; however, Petitioner is
unaware whether other avenues for removal may be utilized by the court, or another entity.

16.

Admit that the Agreed Order referenced in Paragraphs 25, 62, 63, 66, 69 and 72

of the Complaint does not state that Respondent will not “seek” any additional fees.
Response:
Admitted that the referenced order does not expressly contain the language recited above. The
order speaks for itself, and states that “[t]he co-guardians agree that they will serve without
compensation.”

17.

Admit that the Agreed Interim Order does not prohibit a court from entertaining

a subsequent petition for fees.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. The referenced order
speaks for itself.

18.

Admit that Fla. Stat. 744.613(4) took effect on March 10, 2016, and was not

retroactive.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Denied that the
statutory language cited was not codified in Chapter 744 prior to March 10, 2016.
19.

Admit that if the court herein decides that Respondent did not violate a court

order by petitioning for additional fees, which the judge was free to grant or deny, then Counts
III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX of the Complaint are legally insufficient as their premise is based

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 7
June 14, 2018

on a violation of a court order.
Response:
Denied.

20.

Admit that Fla. Stat. 744.474(3) took effect on March 10, 2016 and was not

retroactive.
Response:
Petitioner objects to this request as it appears to seek a legal conclusion. Denied that the
statutory language cited was not codified in Chapter 744 prior to March 10, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael McKeon
Michael McKeon
Senior Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0044620
Office of Public and Professional Guardians
4040 Esplanade Way
Tallahassee, FL 32399-7000
Telephone: (850) 414-2032
Fax: (850) 414-2384
E-mail: mckeonm@elderaffairs.org
Counsel for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by
electronic mail on this 14th day of June, 2018 to the following attorney of record for
Respondent:
Ellen S. Morris, Esq.
Elder Law Associates PA
7284 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 101
Boca Raton, FL 33433

 Petitioner’s Response to
Respondent’s First Request for Admissions
Page 8
June 14, 2018

Fax: (561) 750-4069
E-Mail: emorris@elderlawassociates.com
Secondary E-Mail: lrubin@elderlawassociates.com

/s/ Michael McKeon
Michael McKeon
Senior Attorney
Office of Public and Professional Guardians