I am an Oklahoma resident. My mother-in-law who resided in a
house in south Florida for 40 years was committed to a nursing
home in Florida under the Baker Act, a result of dementia, by order
of a local judge. The house is vacant.

A guardian was appointed by the judge and given "plenary guardianship"
powers --- responsibility for decisions regarding both my mother-in-law
and her property. The house was quit-claimed to my husband 10
years ago with my mother-in-law retaining a life estate.

Now that my MIL is in the nursing home and the house is vacant,
the guardian has let the fire/flood/windstorm insurance expire,
the property is not being maintained (municipal ordinance mandates
property maintenance such as mowing,watering or a lien will be
placed), and there is no reason to expect that the 2004 taxes will
be paid.

The social security checks for my MIL are being handled by the
guardian and are being cashed to pay the guardian and the nursing
home, which also gets Medicaid for my MIL.....

What should we do to protect the property's value? Our interest is
the quit-claim, which gives us NO rights until my MIL's passing.
The present value of the house is about 330K .

We are Oklahoma residents and have no knowledge of Florida law.


Mabel Hudson

"Mabel Hudson" <mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated: was committed to a nursinghome in Florida under the Baker Act, a result of dementia,

Isn't that a little harsh? The law might be a little unwise; I don't
know. But to call it "a result of dementia" reflects poorly on the
legislators.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:25:25 -0400, mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com (Mabel Hudson)
wrote:
What should we do to protect the property's value?

Hire a lawyer, of course.
Our interest isthe quit-claim, which gives us NO rights until my MIL's passing.The present value of the house is about 330K .

I would suggest a specialist in elder law. This is not that uncommon
a situation.
We are Oklahoma residents and have no knowledge of Florida law.

I have no special knowledge of Florida law, either, but I know that a
$330,000 future interest is worth hiring a professional.

http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/loc_search.xml
or try this http://tinyurl.com/6qk0
if the first url is broken. Type in the geographical
information and pull down "Elder Law" from area of practice.

You get more specialists than you can shake a stick at.

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:<66v4i0lqs9mj0k1cmijtvnfq4ga4vavm5t@4ax.com>... "Mabel Hudson" <mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com> wrote in misc.legal.moderated: was committed to a nursinghome in Florida under the Baker Act, a result of dementia, Isn't that a little harsh? The law might be a little unwise; I don't know. But to call it "a result of dementia" reflects poorly on the legislators.
It is exactly as I have stated. The person was not able to care
for herself, had been found in severe medical circumstances by
neighbors, and had caregivers assigned to care for her at home.
She ran them off and was found unconscious again by
neighbors a few days later. The local social services appointed a
temporary guardian, a hearing was held by a judge, and expert
medical testimony diagnosed her with dementia. (Fact is, she
has been nutty as a fruitcake for years, only until it becomes a
danger to others, or to herself, there is nothing that can be done).
The Baker Act ( look it up on Google) gives the state the authority to
put someone away under these conditions. A permanent guardian is
appointed to care for the person and their property until they are
released, or until they die.

It isn't "harsh" at all. She would be dead by now if the
state had not intervened and taken responsibility for her care...
In a nursing home, paid by Medicaid, she may have a year or
two left, with periods of "normal" behavior, since they make her
take her medication....

M H

mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com (Mabel Hudson) wrote in message
news:<u1d9i09b0pjd2oosinudjk6rmae980stiq@4ax.com>... Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<66v4i0lqs9mj0k1cmijtvnfq4ga4vavm5t@4ax.com>... "Mabel Hudson" <mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com> wrote in misc.legal.moderated: was committed to a nursinghome in Florida under the Baker Act, a result of dementia, Isn't that a little harsh? The law might be a little unwise; I don't know. But to call it "a result of dementia" reflects poorly on the legislators. The Baker Act ( look it up on Google) gives the state the authority to put someone away under these conditions. A permanent guardian is appointed to care for the person and their property until they are released, or until they die. It isn't "harsh" at all. She would be dead by now if the state had not intervened and taken responsibility for her care...

Mabel, I think Stan was making a (perhaps poorly timed) joke at the
expense of the Congresscritters, not your relative. The basis of the
joke is that it is possible to read the modifying phrase "a result of
dementia" in your original post as referring to and modifying "the
Baker Act," not as referring to your relative's condition that
resulted in her commitment.

Good luck with your situation. I know it can be exhausting and
depressing to deal with seniors with dementia, but hopefully you too
can see the humor in your grammar, if not in the overall situation.
May it lighten your day.

OT: For a zillion more examples of the same kind of grammatical
guffaws, take a look at the recently published book, "Eats, Shoots &
Leaves" by Lynne Truss. It's a highly amusing yet scholarly Phillipic
against misplaced commas.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300