RHONDA NASSER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THELMA A. MODESITT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH A. NASSER AND GEORGE A. NASSER, APPELLEES
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 personal representative of an estate appeals the denial of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and certain deposition costs incurred in connection with estate administration proceedings. The court affirmed both denials, finding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining there were justiciable issues regarding testamentary capacity and that the appellant failed to demonstrate the deposition costs were reasonably necessary.
The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees because the trial court properly determined there were justiciable issues regarding testamentary capacity and the appellees had a right to investigate these issues. The court also affirmed the denial of deposition costs because the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving the costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time incurred.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, is committed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal a…
[2] A party seeking to tax deposition costs bears the burden of showing that the costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the c…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The award of attorney's fees under section 57.105 is a matter committed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the legal standard for appellate review of attorney's fees awards under section 57.105.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing the death of Thelma A. Modesitt, Rhonda Nasser, as personal representative of the estate, filed for estate administration. Joseph A. Nasser …
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The personal representative of an estate appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to assess fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in connection with a petition for estate administration. She also appeals an order taxing costs which did not include certain deposition costs.
We affirm both the order denying fees and the denial of the deposition costs. As to the fees, the trial court determined that there were justiciable issues regarding the decedent’s testamentary capacity when the appellee filed a caveat and later a declaration of adversary proceedings, and that the appellee had a right to investigate these issues. The award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 is a matter committed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
No such showing is present. We have considered appellant’s claims that the trial court applied the wrong standard in considering the motion and that it incorrectly rejected her claim that the appellee had no standing to file a caveat in these proceedings.
We reject both contentions. We thus affirm the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees.
As to the award of costs, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to tax as costs the expense of two depositions.
Pursuant to the recently revised Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, deposition expenditures are included in the category of items that should be taxed. In re Amendments to Unif. Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612, 616 (Fla.2005).
It is the moving party’s burden to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken. Id. During the hearing on the motion for attorney’s fees and costs, it does not appear that there was ever any inquiry into whether the requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken. As the appellant failed to meet her burden in the trial court to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary, we must affirm the court’s denial of these additional costs.
FARMER, J., and CONNER, BURTON C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…r Attorney’s Fees and Tax Costs and Motions for Sanctions under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2008). The standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1) is clear abuse of discretion. Nasser v. Nasser, 975 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Richard S. Lehman, individually, and Richard S. Lehman, P.A. against Chue and several other defendants for abuse of process and civil conspiracy. Lehman alleged that Chue and…
-
Gualtieri v. Timmie Leigh Keyser, 219 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…n re Amendments to Unif. Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 2005). The Sheriff argues Keyser did not meet her burden to show the video editing was reasonably necessary to prosecute the action. We agree. See Nasser v. Nasser, 975 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming the denial of costs of depositions where the moving party failed to meet her burden in the trial court to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary); cf. Winter Park Imps., Inc. v. JM Family Enters.,…
-
Roberts v. Third Palm, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (finding that where party opposing motion for costs makes it known that he objects to reasonableness of costs, trial court erred in awarding such costs without any testimony regarding reasonableness of costs); Nasser v. Nasser, 975 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“It is the moving party’s burden to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken.” (citing In re Amendments to Unif. Guidelines for Taxat…
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
- In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2005)
- Leonid Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Gross v. State, 958 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)