IN RE ESTATE OF LEON GARVEY, DECEASED. SAMUEL GARVEY, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEON GARVEY, DECEASED; LOUIS R. BELLER AND REDFEARN & SIMON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD GARVEY, ALBERT GARVEY, MYRNA GARVEY AND GILDA KAPLAN, 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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed the probate court's denial of attorneys' fees for appellate services rendered on behalf of an estate. The court held that probate courts have constitutional jurisdiction to award fees for appellate work performed in connection with estate settlement matters, even though appellate rules provide an alternative mechanism for fee awards against losing parties.
A probate court has constitutional jurisdiction under Article V, Section 7(3) of the Florida Constitution to award reasonable attorneys' fees for appellate services rendered on behalf of an estate as part of the broader authority to settle estates. The prior holding in In re Estate of Potts is overruled on this point. Appellate rules do not divest the probate court of this substantive constitutional right.
“a probate court has the jurisdiction over the settlement of estates or decedents and to discharge the duties usually pertaining to courts of probate, among which is the allowance of fees”
Establishes the core holding that probate courts have constitutional jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees for appellate services rendered on behalf of estates.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Garvey, as executor of Leon Garvey's estate, and attorneys Louis R. Beller and Redfearn & Simon successfully defended against an appeal filed b…
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 Petition For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, petitioners in the trial court, seek review of an order of the county judges’ court denying their petition for reasonable attorneys’ fees for legal services rendered by them, in successfully defending against an appeal taken by the appellee, Bernard Garvey, in a prior matter. See: In re Estate of Garvey, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 36, cert. den. Fla., 201 So.2d 558. In this prior matter, the appellants did not file a motion for attorneys’ fees in this court pursuant to Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. Upon remand, the appellants petitioned the county judges’ court for reasonable attorneys’ fees for the services rendered in the appellate court. After hearing on the motion, the county judge was of the opinion that the appellants were entitled to $7,500.00 as a reasonable fee, but he denied the motion on the ground that he was without authority to award fees for services rendered in the appellate court, pursuant to In re Estate of Potts, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 319.
The appellants have preserved two points for review: (1) That this cause is distinguishable from the factual situation in In re Estate of Potts, supra, because of a supersedeas bond which had been issued in connection with the prior appeal, and (2) That the decision in In re Estate of Potts, supra, is contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida which vest the jurisdiction in the probate court for settlement of all matters concerning estates. In view of the fact that we find merit in the second contention, we will not discuss the first.
We decline to follow the rule in In re Estate of Potts, supra, and hold that, pursuant to the provisions of Art. V, § 7(3), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., a probate court has the jurisdiction over the settlement of estates or decedents and to discharge the duties usually pertaining to courts of probate, among which is the allowance of fees. See: In re Warner’s Estate, 1948, 160 Fla. 460, 35 So.2d 296; In re DuVal’s Estate, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 580. § 734.01 (2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that an attorney who renders services for an estate may apply to that court by petition for an order making an allowance of fees, as was done in the case at bar. This is part of the “settlement of estates or decedents” as to which probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction. See: In re DuVal’s Estate, supra. The impact of Rule 3.16, subd. e, Florida Appellate Rules, could not divest the county judges’ court of this jurisdiction. It is a rule of practice and procedure and cannot prevail over the substantive right accorded under the Constitution. See: Lundstrom v. Lyon, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 771. Further, it is apparent that in the ordinary situation of a petition, pursuant to Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, the amount of the fee is adjudicated against the losing litigant ; whereas, when an attorney represents an estate in an appellate proceeding in most instances his fee is adjudicated against his client [the estate] in an amount commensurate with the services rendered.
There are many matters which must be taken into consideration in the settlement of an estate: the total amount of assets involved, the total amount of liquid assets involved, the total amount of work done, the total fees previously awarded, and many other matters which would be peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the probate judge in winding up an estate, and which would not necessarily be before an appellate court in fixing fees in an isolated part of an estate proceeding.
We therefore reverse the order here under review, and hold that the county judge had the authority to enter*792tain the order to fix fees for appellate services rendered on behalf of an estate in “settling an estate”. However, this opinion is not to be construed as interfering with the right of an appellate court to adjudicate fees pursuant to Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, against an adverse party when an estate is successful in an appellate matter.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Charles N. McCUNE, 223 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…efited by the activity of appellee’s attorney. The first and second issues appear to be settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of In re Garvey’s Estate, Fla.1969, 219 So. 2d 685, affirming the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision at 212 So. 2d 790. Under Article V, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the “settlement of estates of decedents.” This includes attorney’s fees for services rendered the estate in the appellate court. Howeve…
-
Cari v. Erickson, 394 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…(Fla. 2nd DCA 1966) succinctly states the rule that “the trial court is without authority to fix attorneys’ fees for services rendered in the Appellate Court....” In Re Estate of Potts, 199 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967) and In Re Estate of Garvey, 212 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968) are cited and argued in the briefs of both parties. Because of the importance of the question involved and the frequency with which it is raised, we will touch briefly upon what we perceive to be the distinguishing feature betwee…
-
SunTRUST Bank v. Guardianship OF Donald Nichols, 701 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…theast Bank N.A., 596 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1992) and In re Estate of Udell, 501 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We hold that the trial court was correct. The supreme court reviewed In re Estate of Garvey, 212 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (Garvey I), in Garvey v. Garvey, 219 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1969)(Garvey II), for conflict with In re Estate of Potts, 199 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), and held that the probate court has jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees for servi…
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 the Est. of Ellsworth C. Warner, 160 Fla. 460 (Fla. 1948)
- In re Est. of Lavenia Buckley DuVAL v. Kirk, 174 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Lundstrom v. Hunter Lyon, II, 86 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1956)
- In re Est. of Ira D. Potts, 199 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Gotshall v. Taylor, 201 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1967)
- Marks v. Novak, 199 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- In re Est. of Leon Garvey v. Garvey, 196 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)