Bishop v. Estate of Rossi

Bishop v. Estate of Rossi, 114 So.3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)

An order granting attorney's fees, whether in probate or otherwise, must contain two distinct findings: (1) whether the attorney is entitled to fees and (2) whether the amount of fees is reasonable.  Here, the trial court failed to address the second issue in its order, and thus the case was remanded for clarification on that issue. The Court discussed both prongs of the test:

(1) Whether the attorney is entitled to fees:

The question of whether an attorney is entitled to fees is typically a question of law.  While factual findings can be helpful, the Court explained that "entitlement to attorney's fees is based on the interpretation of contractual provisions...or a statute...as a pure matter of law..." Hinkley v. Gould, Cooksey, Fennell, O'Neill, Marine, Carter & Hafner, P.A., 971 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

(2) Reasonableness of fees:

An order setting the amount of an attorney's fees must make express findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate for that litigation (this is the "lodestar" method for determining fees- adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)).  The lodestar method applies equally in probate matters.  Because the trial court did not make written findings in its order granting attorney's fees, the Court could not determine whether the trial court had considered and determined the reasonable number of hours expended and the reasonably hourly rate.  The Court "reluctantly" remanded for a written order making such an express finding.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 stamped the will.  The testator
Read more

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

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, &quo
Read more