Schlesinger v. Jacob

Schlesinger v. Jacob, 240 So.3d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)

In this decision, the 3rd DCA adopts the requirement that an attorney's services must benefit a ward or the ward's estate in order to be entitled to fees. The Court focuses on the different standards under the statutes to determine entitlement to fees, versus the standard to determine amount and reasonableness of fees. 

On one hand, F.S. 744.108(1) governs entitlement to fees, and provides:

A guardian, or an attorney who has rendered services to the ward or to the guardian on the ward's behalf, is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred on behalf of the ward.

Case law construing this section has uniformly added in the requirement that the services must benefit the ward or the ward's estate, despite the fact that the word "benefit" appears nowhere in the statute.

On the other hand, F.S. 744.108(2) deals with the amount and reasonableness of fees once it is determined that an attorney is entitled to fees. It provides:

When fees for a guardian or an attorney are submitted to the court for determination, the court shall consider the following criteria:
(a) The time and labor required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the services properly;
(c) The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the person;
(d) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services;
(e) The nature and value of the incapacitated person's property, the amount of income earned by the estate, and the responsibilities and potential liabilities assumed by the person;
(f) The results obtained;
(g) The time limits imposed by the circumstances;
(h) The nature and length of the relationship with the incapacitated person; and
(i) The experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the person performing the service.

It seems clear from the language of the statute that the results obtained by the lawyer would be relevant in determining the amount and reasonableness of the fee, rather than entitlement, but for now, courts have unanimously read this requirement into the threshold entitlement question as well.

I urge practitioners who are involved in guardianship matters to read the concurring opinion by Judge Robert Luck. He expresses his concerns about the added requirement that an attorney's services "benefit" the ward and notes that if fees are only awarded to successful litigants, family members may be less likely to bring guardianship actions out of concern for how the attorney will be paid, leaving vulnerable persons with less oversight by the courts.

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

Estate of McKenzie v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc.

  Estate of McKenzie through McIntosch v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc. , --- So.3d ---, 2021 WL 3672215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) The "relation back doctrine" as provided in F.S. 733.601 provides that a personal representative's powers "relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed, occurring before appointment and beneficial to the estate, the same effect as those occurring after appointment." Here, the nominated personal representative filed a workman's compensation petition for benefits on behalf of her deceased brother prior to her appointment as personal representative. The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed her petition because she was not the personal representative when she filed the petition. The Court reversed, relying on Cunningham v. Florida Dep't of Child & Fams. , which held that, "it follows, from the fact that the plaintiff can amend to reflect his capacity as personal representative, that claims which are properly recoverable by...
Read more