LOIS B. LEPP, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
ARDELLA B. BLUE, AS GUARDIAN OF EARL L. BLACK, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's reduction of attorney's fees for a guardian's attorney, holding that the trial court's determination that the work was "massive overkill" and unreasonable lacked evidentiary support in the record.
A trial court's reduction of attorney's fees based on subjective beliefs about reasonableness without adequate record support must be reversed, and fees must be awarded as requested when supported by testimony.
[1] A trial court's reduction of attorney's fees based on subjective determinations of reasonableness without evidentiary support in the record is reversible error.
[2] An attorney's hourly rate for fees must be based on testimony establishing the rate rather than the trial court's subjective reduction below the established rate.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“turned out to be almost entirely specious”
Trial court's characterization of the allegations against the guardian
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney for a guardian sought attorney's fees for work investigating and disproving allegations against the guardian. The trial court awarded only…
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 Appellate Review Of Fee Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
In this guardianship case, the attorney for the guardian appeals an order awarding her only a portion of the attorney’s fees she requested for work done to address a series of allegations against the guardian that, according to the trial court, “turned out to be almost entirely specious.” We are constrained to reverse the challenged order because the record does not support the trial court’s determination that the work done by Appellant to investigate and disprove the allegations was “massive overkill” or that the work set forth in the time entries disallowed by the trial court “was neither reasonable or necessary,” see Sanchez v. Woemer Management, Inc., 867 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing order awarding a reduced attorney’s fee that was based upon the judge’s subjective belief as to what was reasonable under the circumstances), nor does the record support the trial court’s reduction in the hourly rate requested by Appellant. See In re Kesish, 98 So.3d 188, 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing order awarding attorney’s fees at an hourly rate below the rate established by the testimony of the attorney providing the services and her expert witnesses). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to award the attorney’s fees requested by Appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanchez v. Woerner Mgmt., 867 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Howell v. Dep't OF Health, 98 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)