T. CARLTON RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROOSEVELT JONES, SR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LUELA KING, DECEASED, 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.
Attorney T. Carlton Richardson challenges a trial court order directing him to reimburse an estate for excessive attorney's fees. The appellate court agreed the fees were excessive but found the trial court miscalculated the amount owed, resulting in a partial reversal and remand.
The court affirmed that Richardson must reimburse the estate for excessive fees but reversed the calculation, finding the actual fees received were $6,493.40, not $8,018.49. The trial court had authority to order reimbursement under Florida law, and no constitutional right to jury trial applies to attorney's fee determinations.
[1] A court may order an attorney to refund excessive compensation received for services rendered to an estate, even if the attorney was paid personally by the personal repre…
[2] A trial court has the authority to review and determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees paid by a personal representative for services rendered to an estate.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any person who is determined to have received excessive compensation from an estate for services rendered may be ordered to make appropriate refunds.”
Statutory basis under Florida law for ordering reimbursement of excessive attorney's fees from an estate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1983, Richardson was retained to provide legal services for Roosevelt Jones, Sr., as personal representative of the Luela King estate. The estate's…
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 Reasonable Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Attorney T. Carlton Richardson challenges the trial court’s order directing him to reimburse the estate of Luela King for excessive attorney’s fees he received from the personal representative.
In 1983, Roosevelt Jones, Sr., retained Richardson to render necessary legal services in Jones’ administration of the estate of Luela King, deceased. The only asset of the estate was a parcel of real estate which Jones and his wife purchased for $18,000 cash with approval of the court.
The trial court found that Richardson had charged excessive attorney’s fees and ordered him to return to the estate the sum of $5,368.20, representing the difference between the fees Jones advanced on behalf of the estate, $8,018.49, less costs of $150.29, and the sum of $2,500, which the court determined to be a reasonable fee for Richardson’s legal services. We agree that the court was correct in ordering Richardson to repay excessive fees; however, it appears to us that the trial judge erred in computing the amount of fees paid by Jones. In arriving at the amount of $8,018.49 as having been paid, the trial court apparently totaled the balance figures at the top of each of several invoices which Richardson submitted. Yet, the record reveals these invoices totaled only $6,493.40. While the court’s order recites that the parties stipulated that Jones advanced $8,018.49 for attorney’s fees, we think the true effect of the stipulation was that Richardson agreed that his invoices to Jones for legal services had been paid in full.
Consequently, Richardson must reimburse the estate for the actual sum he received from Jones less the $2,650.29 allowed by the court.
Section 733.6175, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that “Any person who is determined to have received excessive compensation from an estate for services rendered may be ordered to make appropriate refunds.” Richardson argues that because he had been paid by Jones personally, rather than having been paid from the estate, the court had no authority to order a reimbursement.
We find this argument to be without merit. The court’s order simply carries out its obligation to review and determine the reasonableness of compensation to be paid to an attorney for a personal representative. Sheffield v. Dallas, 417 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Moreover, Richardson’s contention that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a trial by jury in determining the amount of his attorney’s fees is devoid of merit. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Giuliano, 166 So. 2d 443 (Fla.1964).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Richardson, 574 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1990)…a reasonable fee in the probate case and that $150.29 was the amount of costs incurred. He then directed Richardson to make restitution for all money received in excess of $2,650.29. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, Richardson v. Jones, 508 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987),1 but remanded the cause for a recalculation of the fees paid by the Joneses. On remand, Judge Alvarez determined that the Joneses had paid $10,550.99 for the work completed on King’s estate.…
-
In re Est. OF Edna Vivian Winston v. Winston, 610 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…by the personal representative, as is the case here, where the compensation of Bankers Trust Company is included as an item in the final accounting and approval of that item is sought in the Florida probate proceedings. Semble: Richardson v. Jones, 508 So. 2d 739, 740 (Fla.2d DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987). Upon remand it will be necessary for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing upon appropriate application by a proper party to determine the nature of Bankers Trust Company’s employ…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Richardson, 591 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1991)…rendered by the personal representative personally, rather than from the estate. The district court of appeal found this argument to be without merit, and remanded to the probate court to correct the amount of the reimbursement. Richardson v. Jones, 508 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Review by this Court was denied. 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987). After recalculation by the probate court, Richardson again attempted to appeal. This appeal was dismissed as untimely filed. Richardson was later suspended for ninety-o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Etta B. Sheffield v. Dallas, 417 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Giuliano, 166 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1964)
- Thomas v. E. L. Thompson Co., 166 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1964)