In re Guardianship of Klatthaar

In re Guardianship of Klatthaar, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), 2014 WL 51382

In guardianship proceedings, until incapacity is determined and a guardian is appointed, fees of the various attorneys involved and the members of the examining committee may rack up without any method for payment.  Once a guardianship is established, the law is clear about payment of the fees.  But if a guardianship is never established, as the Court correctly points out in this decision, there is a hole in our statute that leaves attorneys and examining committee members with no ability to be paid for their work.

In this case, the alleged incapacitated person died before a final determination of incapacity was rendered.  A petition was filed and an ordered was entered for the fees and costs of the attorney for the petitioner, the attorney for the alleged incapacitated person and the members of the examining committee.  The personal representative of the decedent's estate appealed that determination and the Court ultimately reversed the order for fees and costs because a guardianship was never established.

F.S. 744.331(7)(a) entitles the examining committee and the court-appointed attorney to reasonable fees once incapacity is determined and a guardian is appointed.  F.S. 744.331(7)(c) provides that where the petition for incapacity is dismissed, the costs and attorney's fees of the proceeding may be assessed against the petitioner if the court finds the petition to have been filed in bad faith.  F.S. 744.331 leaves a gap when a good faith petition to determine incapacity is dismissed. The Court admitted it was concerned that practitioners would not offer their services if they know that they will only be paid if there is a certain outcome, but it felt that it is up to the legislature to determine who should be responsible for these fees.

F.S. 744.108(1) entitles a guardian or an attorney for a ward or guardian to reasonable fees.  This statute only applies to situations where a guardian has actually been appointed for a ward.  If a guardianship is never established, this section cannot be relied on.

Hopefully this decision will spur a change in our guardianship statutes to close this gap!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more