IN RE ESTATE OF HARVEY S. WARWICK, DECEASED
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed an estate attorney's fee of $54,000 (approximately 2.75% of a $1.89 million estate) and held that the lodestar method—calculating fees based on reasonable hours and hourly rates—must be applied to attorney's fees in estate proceedings, rejecting the traditional percentage-of-estate approach.
The lodestar method must be applied to determine reasonable attorney's fees in estate proceedings, and the practice of computing fees solely as a percentage of an estate's gross value is improper. The case was remanded for recalculation of fees consistent with the lodestar approach.
[1] The lodestar method for calculating attorney's fees is applicable in estate proceedings.
[2] An attorney's fee award in an estate proceeding may not be based solely on a percentage of the estate's gross value.
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“Considering the gross value of the estate, the attorney's exposure to potential liability, the local bar's customary practice of charging a fee based upon a percentage of an estate's gross value, and the expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, we find no abuse of discretion.”
The district court's reasoning for upholding the percentage-based fee, which the Supreme Court rejected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvey S. Warwick's estate was valued at approximately $1,890,000. The estate's attorney computed his fee at 2.75% to 3% of the estate's gross value, …
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 Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund V. Rowe Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
Petitioner, Julia W. Carswell, co-personal representative and beneficiary of the estate of Harvey S. Warwick, deceased, seeks review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in In re Estate of Warwick, 543 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Petitioner challenges the attorney’s fee computed solely on a percentage of Warwick’s $1,890,000 estate. We find conflict with Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990); De Loach v. Westman, 506 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); and Brady v. Williams, 491 So. 2d 1160 (Fla.2d DCA 1986).1
The attorney for the estate set a fee based on 21/?. to 3% of the value of the estate, or $54,000. The attorney testified that he had spent approximately 120 to 130 hours on the estate, although he could give no breakdown as to how his hours had been spent. The attorney testified that a 3% fee would equal $57,000. However, he reduced the fee to $54,000, based on approximately 2¾% of the value of the estate.
Petitioner, in challenging the fee, presented an expert who testified that a reasonable fee would be between $20,000 and $30,000. He computed this fee by determining a reasonable number of hours for each service rendered. He then used the lodestar method set forth in Florida PoMent’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.1985), in assessing attorney’s fees.
Both the trial court and the district court of appeal rejected the use of the lodestar method. The district court held:
Considering the gross value of the estate, the attorney’s exposure to potential liability, the local bar’s customary practice of charging a fee based upon a percentage of an estate’s gross value, and the expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, we find no abuse of discretion.
In re Estate of Warwick, 543 So. 2d at 449 (emphasis added). The district court also expressly held that the lodestar method of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), was not applicable in this type of proceeding.
For the reasons expressed in our clarified decision in In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1991), we quash the decision of the district court of appeal in the instant case. Accordingly, we direct that this cause be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in our Platt decision.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents.
. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Lester Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1991)…mount equal to one-third of NCNB’s fee. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the setting of fees based on a percentage of the estate, relying on its decision in In re Estate of Warwick, 643 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), quashed, 586 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1991). The issue in this cause is whether section 733.617allows “reasonable compensation” for attorneys and personal representatives to be computed solely on the basis of a fixed percentage of the amount of the probate estate. To understand t…
-
Zada Dutton Burdine Phipps v. Est. of Patricia Burdine, 586 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…45 (Fla.1985) need not be applied in the determination of attorney’s fees under section 733.617. However, the supreme court disagreed and in Platt held the lodestar approach is appropriate for the determination of such fees. In re Estate of Warwick, 586 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1991). The expert testified that one factor to be considered was the gross value of the estate and the potential liability involved. He stated that considering the local and customary practice of charging a fee looking at all of these factors…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- In re Est. OF Lester Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1991)
- Guion T. DE Loach v. Westman, 506 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- In re Est. OF Harvey S. Warwick, 543 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Wright v. Wright, 491 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)