Issue Spotting
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • October 31, 2021

There ought to be a law.


Most professional Guardians are conscientious, ethical professionals who take their duties seriously and work diligently to protect those under their care. 


Then, there are the others.


You need not have seen the movie “I Care a Lot” on Netflix to be aware that with the duties and obligations of plenary guardianships carry with them the seeds for abuse. Recently, you may have seen in the news that a Florida Professional Guardian, Lynrod Douglas, now stripped of his guardianships, is awaiting sentencing on 15 charges relating to fraud he committed in various guardianships.


The very people he was entrusted to protect, he was financially abusing. His preferred method of carrying out his theft was to use the Certified copies of his Letters of Guardianship, which authorize him to take possession of all of the assets of the people under his care. He would liquidate those assets, such as Certificates of Deposit and simply fail to report that the assets ever existed in his initial (and subsequent) reports which he filed with the Court.


Something as simple as excluding assets allowed the guardian to pocket them.


It seems obvious that reformation and closer monitoring of Guardianships is needed.


I believe a Statewide Registry of all assets which are liquidated or of which possession is taken by someone other than the owner be created. This would include any fiduciary, including Attorneys-in-Fact and, of course, guardians. The registry would be available to be searched by the Court’s auditors to ensure all assets are tracked.


There already are Statewide registries for other matters, such as putative fathers, why not the assets of our most dependent seniors?


Share this article

The time for using unregulated Lady Bird Deeds might be ending.

By By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • September 24, 2026
The time for using unregulated Lady Bird Deeds might be ending.

MY MOTHER, THE GRAMMAR TEACHER, WOULD BE SO PROUD: We Have Our Own "Comma" Case

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • July 22, 2026
One of the most absurd things for law students to grasp in that all-important first year, is the idea of what can be considered "ambiguous." (Ambiguity is "an uncertainty of meaning or intention, as in a contractual term or statutory provision.") If language is deemed "ambiguous," what happens next depends on where this ambiguity is found. The ambiguity can be subject to interpretation of a Court - if it is in a statute. If the Court has to use interpretation, there are several tools they can use to derive meaning and intent from the writers of the statute. This search for "Legislative intent" is sometimes easy if there is a part of the statute stating specifically what the Legislature was trying to do. Without that, however, judges will look at what the plain and simple language would mean. If that does not help, then they can look at the surrounding language, the other terms, what might be excluded, what would make the language harmonious with the other laws on the topic... All kinds of factors are examined to determine what the law is trying to say. However, if the ambiguity is found in a contract, the options are different and depend on whether the ambiguity is an obvious mistake ("Art is the Buyer" and then, later "The Buyer, Bert" is written in the same contract) or whether it is a more sneaky ambiguity. Here is where the comma comes into play. The Tariff of 1872 misplaced a comma, resulting in fruits not being subject to the tax. The tariff was trying to say that fruits and fruit plants would be subject to the tariff, but, by placing a comma where it did not belong, fruits become tax free and only fruit-bearing plants were subject to the Tariff. Another is a case where there would be no overtime payments for work done for "...drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution" of foods. Because there was no comma between "shipment" and "distribution," the Court found it questionable if "shipment and distribution" were one joint act or two separate ones. The result? Workers got their overtime payments. Now, we have a case, decided July 22, 2026 by our appellate court, that a comma found between "construed according to the laws of the State of Florida" and "with venue in Collier County," created an ambiguity allowing venue to be set in another County (Martin). The comma controlled and there is an ambiguity, allowing the action to be filed in Martin County, rather than Collier. The benefits of filing in one county verses another, well, that would be an entirely different article.  Just remember: Watch those punctuation marks folks! Ambiguities may be found everywhere!