GWENN GAMSE, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD TOUBY AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF WINNIE C. WEINSTEIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding guardian and attorney fees, as the record contained competent substantial evidence to support the awards.
The guardian of an incompetent person petitioned for instructions regarding trust accounts and a loan to the ward's daughter. After legal proceedings,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gwenn Gamse, daughter of Winnie Wein-stein, incompetent, appeals an order awarding the guardian of Mrs. Weinstein $6,500 in fees and the attorneys for the guardian $12,500 plus costs.
Winnie Weinstein was adjudicated incompetent and Richard Touby was appointed guardian of her property. Subsequently Touby filed a petition for instructions seeking to institute legal proceedings to deter mine the validity of certain trust accounts1 established in various financial institutions by Mrs. Weinstein and the amount of an alleged loan to her daughter Gwenn Gamse. Having obtained court authorization, Touby filed declaratory judgment actions against Gamse and others. A final judgment was entered upholding the validity of the trust accounts and finding that Gamse was not indebted to her mother. Thereafter, Touby petitioned the court for $8,700 for services rendered as guardian.2 His attorneys also filed a petition seeking $12,551.25 plus costs for their services on behalf of Touby as guardian. A hearing was held and the trial court awarded Touby $6,500 and his attorneys $12,500 plus costs. Gwenn Gamse appeals the awards and argues that the amount of the fees are unreasonable and excessive. We cannot agree.
The amount of guardian and/or attorneys’ fees to be awarded (as compensation for services rendered) is in the discretion of the trial judge and his determination will not be disturbed unless there is a lack of competent substantial evidence to support the award. See Lucom v. Atlantic National Bank of West Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1957); Rivers v. Phillips, 367 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The record in the instant case is replete with evidence supporting the awards to Touby, the guardian and his attorneys. Gamse having failed to present any expert testimony as to what reasonable fees would be, we find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
. Placed in trust for her children and/or grandchildren.
. Pursuant to Section 744.108, Florida Statutes (1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Guardianship of Albert Sitter. Nicky Valentini v. State, 779 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…for the earlier period. The amount of a guardian fee is entrusted to the discretion of the circuit court, and its determination will not be disturbed unless there is a lack of competent substantial evidence to support the award. See Gamse v. Touby, 382 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). As mentioned, the evidence did not support the amount awarded in this case. Beyond that, judicial discretion is never unbridled. Discretionary judicial acts are subject to the test of reasonableness; i.e., they must be supp…
-
In re Guardianship OF William Ansley v. Fay Howard, 94 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…Rowe, [3] Platt [,4] and the statute.” Jones v. Dunning, 661 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Generally, we review an award of fees for an attorney’s services in a guardianship for abuse of discretion. Butler, 898 So. 2d at 1141; Gamse v. Touby, 382 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact when they are based on competent, substantial evidence. State, Fla. Highway Patrol v. Forfeiture of Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred & Eighty (29,980.00) in U.S. Currency, 80…
-
In re Guardianship OF Sara H. Sapp. Lee O'Hare & Lynn Atherton v. Lalai Hamric, 868 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…guardian’s fees to be' awarded as compensation for services rendered is in the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed unless there is a lack of competent, substantial evidence to support the award. Gamse v. Touby, 382 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Nevertheless, in guardianship cases, as in other cases, discretionary acts are subject to the test of reasonableness, i.e., they must' be supported by logic and justification for the result and founded on substantial, compet…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Virginia Willys Lucom (Formerly Virginia Willys de Landa) v. Atl. Nat'l Bank OF W. Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1957)
- Rivers v. Phillips, 367 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)