RITA SCHACTER, APPELLANT,
v.
GUARDIANSHIP OF ABRAHAM SCHACTER, INCAPACITATED, 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.
A guardian appeals a trial court order awarding her approximately 10% of her requested guardianship fees without explanation. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the court's drastic reduction of the hourly rate from a previously approved $25/hour to $5/hour constituted an abuse of discretion lacking evidentiary support.
The trial court abused its discretion by reducing the guardian's fee to an amount constituting approximately 10% of that requested without substantial competent evidence or justification. A guardian is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered, and prior approval of a fee rate creates a valid presumption of reasonableness absent valid justification for a different rate.
[1] A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered.
[2] A trial court's award of a guardian's fee must be supported by substantial competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. § 744.108(1), Fla. Stat. (1999)”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that guardians must receive reasonable compensation for their work
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe guardian submitted an itemized petition for guardianship fees covering nine months of service, claiming 897.33 hours at $25/hour, totaling $22,433…
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
OWEN, WILLIAM G, Jr., Senior Judge.
The plenary guardian of the person and property of the ward appeals an order which, without explanation or apparent basis in the record, awards her a fee of approximately ten percent of that sought by her verified itemized petition. We reverse and remand for further consideration.
A previous petition of the guardian, covering the seven months preceding the petition involved here, had been approved by the court for 335.57 itemized hours of service at $25 per hour. The petition on which the present order was based itemized 897.33 hours of service covering a period of nine months and, on the basis of $25 per hour, sought a guardianship fee of $22,433.25. Along with the petition, a proposed order was submitted to the court with the hourly rate, total hours and compensation already inserted to correspond to the respective rate, total hours and compensation sought by the petition. Without a hearing on the petition or any explanation, the court signed the proposed order but only after first modifying it by reducing the hourly rate to $5, the hours worked to 500, and total fee to $2,500.
While our examination of the itemized petition reveals services which the court may well have found to be either unnecessary or for some other reasons to be non-compensable1, there is simply no explanation as to why the court would reduce the guardian’s fee from the previously approved rate of $25 per hour to a rate of $5 per hour2, a mere 20 percent of the previously approved rate. A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. § 744.108(1), Fla. Stat. (1999); Lucom v. Atlantic Nat’l Bank of West Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1957); In re Guardianship of Berg, 348 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). That the court had previously approved a fee based on the rate of $25 per hour does not mandate that fees allowed in the future be at the same rate. However, it does create a valid presumption that $25 per hour is a reasonable rate for the services provided by this guardian in the absence of valid justification for a different rate.
Although the amount of a guardian’s fee is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, there must be substantial competent evidence to support the award. We find none here. In factually similar cases, the courts have found that such a drastic reduction of fee, without explanation or support in the record, was an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Holman v. Guardianship of Ferber, 528 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Valentini v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D436, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 193601 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 16, 2000); Smith v. Guardianship of Knox, 751 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We hold that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to arbitrarily reduce the guardian’s hourly rate to $5 per hour. Upon remand the court shall reconsider the petition, applying the criteria set forth in section 744.108(2), Fla. Stat. REVERSED and REMANDED.
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . However, the form order signed by the court contained the finding "that the material allegations of the Petition are true ...”
. A rate, we would note, which is below the present minimum wage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Guardianship OF Sara H. Sapp. Lee O'Hare & Lynn Atherton v. Lalai Hamric, 868 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The Applicable Law A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. § 744.108(1); Lucom v. Atl. Nat’l Bank of W. Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla.1957); Schacter v. Guardianship of Schacter, 756 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Ash v. Coconut Grove Bank, 448 So. 2d 605, 607-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The criteria to be considered by the court in determining an award of fees to a guardian are set forth in section 744.108(2). Pursuant to section 744.10…
-
Thorpe v. Myers, 67 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…s or attorney’s fees is submitted for determination. Under the statute, a guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. Lucom v. Atl. Nat’l Bank of W. Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla.1957); Schacter v. Guardianship of Schacter, 756 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Ash v. Coconut Grove Bank, 448 So. 2d 605, 607-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There are some exceptions to the general rule entitling a guardian to payment for services rendered, but these exceptions are limited. We briefly menti…
-
Shappell v. Guardianship OF Stanley A. Naybar, 876 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…man, 868 So. 2d 1259, 1261-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Generally speaking, a guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. Lucom v. Atl. Nat’l Bank of W. Palm Beach, 97 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla.1957); Schacter v. Guardianship of Schacter, 756 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing section 744.108(1), Florida Statutes [*692] (1999), which has remained unchanged at all times relevant to this case). We recognize that the circuit courts of this state frequently dispose of uncontested petitions fo…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 528 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- In re the Guardianship OF Catherine Berg, 348 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Smith v. Guardianship OF Estelle Knox, 751 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)