PENELOPE JEAN JONES
v.
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF WILLIAM EDWARD JONES, ADULT WARD AND TAMMY JONES HAYNES
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 in a close familial relationship with the ward is entitled to reasonable compensation for services performed within the scope of guardianship duties that a professional or non-family member guardian would undertake, but not for services that merely constitute what any family member would do for a relative.
[1] A family member serving as guardian is not entitled to compensation for services that any family member would ordinarily provide to a relative, but is entitled to reasona…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 in a close familial relationship with the ward is not entitled to compensation for 'merely doing what any family member would do for their relative under the circumstances.' However, a guardian in a close familial relationship with the ward is entitled to compensation for reasonable and necessary services performed 'within the scope of his or her duties as a guardian.'”
Court's statement of the applicable legal standard for compensating family member guardians
Penelope Jones served as guardian for her father, William Edward Jones, and requested guardian compensation. The trial court denied the request solely…
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.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
PENELOPE JEAN JONES,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-1564
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF WILLIAM
EDWARD JONES, ADULT WARD AND
TAMMY JONES HAYNES,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 14, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.
Beth Kathryn Roland, of Family First Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Penelope Jones appeals a guardianship order denying her request for guardian compensation. The sole basis for the trial court’s denial of the request was that Jones had “an obligation to provide such services for the ward without compensation due to the father/daughter familial relationship between the Ward and the guardian.” We reverse.
2
A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered to the ward. § 744.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). 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). Where, as in the instant case, there is a close familial relationship between the guardian and the ward, the guardian is not entitled to compensation for “merely doing what any family member would do for their relative under the circumstances.” In re Guardianship of Sapp, 868 So. 2d 687, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). However, a guardian in a close familial relationship with the ward is entitled to compensation for reasonable and necessary services performed “within the scope of his or her duties as a guardian.” Id.
On remand, the trial court should determine the services that would reasonably be performed by a professional or other non-family member guardian necessary to discharge a guardian’s duty to the ward. The guardian would be entitled to compensation to the extent those services were actually performed and properly documented. Id. at 698. The guardian would not be entitled to compensation for services “that would not generally be undertaken by a professional or other non-family member guardian, i.e., ‘for merely doing what any daughter does.’” Id.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.