MonarchCare, Inc. v. Guardianship of Block

MonarchCare, Inc. v. Guardianship of Block, 204 So.3d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

In what seems to be a growing trend of appellate decisions involving guardianship fees, this decision involves a trial court's decision to reduce a professional guardian's hourly rate. Here, a professional guardian and an individual served as co-guardians of a ward.  The professional guardian billed at its standard hourly rate of $95 per hour, while the individual co-guardian billed at a rate of about $45-$50 per hour.  At an earlier hearing, the trial court granted a pending fee request for $95 per hour for the professional guardian, but prospectively capped both guardians fees at $45 per hour.

Subsequent to the entry of that order, a new judge took over the case, and the professional guardian made another request for its fees at $95 per hour.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the new judge reduced the professional guardian's rate to $45 per hour.  The professional guardian appealed.

The Court held that the court properly considered the factors laid out in F.S. 744.108(2) at the evidentiary hearing.  It noted that a previous approval of a guardian's fees would create a presumption that the rate is reasonable.  However, the Court felt that in this case, the presumption was a weak one since the prior judge did not hold any hearings to establish the reasonableness of the hourly rate.  It also noted that many of the hours billed could have been performed at a lesser rate.

Despite agreeing with the trial court's analysis of the guardianship fees, the Court reversed because it felt that the trial court simply accepted the prior judge's reduction of the fees to $45 per hour when there was no evidence in the record to support such a reduction.  It concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding a valid justification for a different rate, but that the reduction of the rate to $45 per hour was not supported by the record.

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