CABRERA v. CABRERA RUBIO (2026)

Petitioner Arys Rene Cabrera challenges, via certiorari, the guardianship court's February 26, 2026 omnibus order rendered after a hearing of the same day (the “Order”). The Order, among other things, denied Petitioner's motion to remove Respondent Lilian Guadalupe Cabrera Rubio as the guardian for the ward. Petitioner asserts standing as an “interested person” under section 744.477(1) of the Florida Statutes (2025).¹

The Order adjudicates with finality Petitioner's right as an interested person to seek the removal of the guardian. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.170(b) (“[A]ppeals of orders rendered in ․ guardianship cases will be limited to orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.”); see Hernandez v. Hernandez, 230 So. 3d 119, 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Because section 744.477(1) provided Petitioner with the right to seek the guardian's removal, the trial court's denial of the Petition to Remove Guardian “on the merits” constituted a final order.

We therefore treat the petition as an appeal of the Order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause must be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought[.]”).² We have carefully reviewed the parties’ extensive briefing, the Order, and those portions of the record provided to us by the parties, including the statement of proceedings that Petitioner filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), in lieu of a transcript of the February 26, 2026 hearing. Earlier in this appeal, we also considered and ruled on certain procedural issues related to Petitioner's action, and thus we are informed by the facts and issues we necessarily considered in that prior adjudication. Cabrera v. Rubio, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D782, ––– So.3d ––––, 2026 WL 1014066 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 15, 2026).

Because Petitioner has established no basis for reversal of the Order, we affirm the Order in all respects. Also, because guardianship resources are limited and should be used for the benefit of the ward, no motion for rehearing or any other post-opinion motion will be entertained by the Court.

Petition for writ of certiorari treated as appeal; challenged Order affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Under the Florida Probate Code, an interested person is “any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.” § 731.201(23), Fla. Stat. (2026).

2.   We note that, had we reviewed the Order under the certiorari standard, we would have been compelled to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to establish that he, as opposed to the ward, had suffered irreparable harm. See Aguilar v. Leal, 426 So. 3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).

PER CURIAM.