IN RE ESTATE OF WILLIAM STRAITZ, DECEASED. G. H. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURA S. STRAITZ, AS GUARDIAN OF BEVERLY ANN STRAITZ, A MINOR, 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.
An attorney appeals an award of $10,000 in fees plus interest for representing a minor in connection with the administration of her father's estate. The court affirmed the lower court's award, finding it reasonable compensation for the legal services rendered relative to the minor's share of the approximately $490,000 estate.
The lower court's award of $10,000 in attorney's fees was reasonable and not reversible error. The trial court also properly awarded interest on the fee from the date of discharge.
“the lower court had sufficient evidence from which he could determine that $10,000 would be a reasonable fee commensurate to the value of the legal services performed and to the value of said services to the minor's one-half share of the estate”
Establishes that the trial court's fee determination was supported by sufficient evidence and the standard for evaluating attorney's fees in estate matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant attorney represented a minor in connection with the administration of her father's estate. The estate had a gross value of approximately…
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 Interest On Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves the amount of an attorney’s fee which the lower court awarded the attorney for a minor for representing said minor in connection with the administration of her father’s estate.
The lower court awarded said attorney, appellant here, the amount of $10,000 with interest at six percent (6%) from February 7, 1957, the date of his discharge by the guardian of the minor involved. Appellant contends said award is insufficient.
We have closely reviewed the record and find that the lower court had sufficient evidence from which he could determine that $10,000 would be a reasonable fee commensurate to the value of the legal services performed and to the value of said services to the minor’s one-half share of the estate in question, said estate having an indicated gross value of approximately $490,000.00.
The lower court could consider whether or not all the services rendered by the appellant were of value to the ward’s interest; whether the trips taken out of the State of Florida in the domain of the principal administrator were necessary since this was an ancillary administration; consider the testimony of the professional witnesses as to the value of the appellant’s services and then determine the weight he would give to such testimony. It was in the domain of the trial judge to determine these questions.
It is not our province to view this record to decide whether or not, had we been in the place of the nisi prius judge, we would have given more or less amounts to the appellant for his services. Nor, based *174upon the record before us, can we say that the lower court committed reversible error in not awarding the appellant a fee larger than $10,000.
The lower court, citing Huntley v. Baya, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 248, as aforesaid also awarded interest on the attorney’s fee from the date said fee became due, to wit: the date of appellant’s discharge by the minor’s guardian on February 7, 1957. Appellee has cross-assigned as error the award of interest. Based on the authority relied on by the lower court, it is our view that the lower court acted within its discretion in awarding interest on the attorney’s fees.
Perceiving no grounds for reversal, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SMITH and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donner v. Donner, 281 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ve that it is within the province of an appellate court to decide whether or not, had we been sitting in place of the nisi prius judge, we would have given more or less an amount to the attorney for his services. In re Straitz’ Estate, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 172. The record establishes that the investigations of the attorney for the appellee wife resulted in a final determination of appellant’s wealth to be in the range of 7 to 11 Million Dollars, contrary to the original financial statements supplied by a…
-
In re Straitz' Estate, 156 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1963)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 147 So. 2d 172.…
-
Bodine v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 138 B.R. 88 (M.D. Fla. 1992)…Id. at 251 (citations omitted). Thereafter, the court affirmed the trial judge’s instruction that any assessment of prejudgment interest should commence from the terminal date of the legal services rendered. See also In re Straitz’ Estate, 147 So.2d 172 (Fla.2d DCA 1962) (interest attending award of attorney’s fees commences from date of attorney’s discharge). More recently, in Rood v. McMakin, 538 So.2d 125 (Fla.2d DCA 1989), another Florida District Court determined that prejudgment int…
Authorities Cited
- Huntley v. Baya, 136 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. of William Straitz v. Straitz, 135 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)