JOHN N. WATTS, SR., ET AL.,
v.
BEATRICE NEWPORT IN RE: ESTATE OF LETITIA V. GRAHAM, DECEASED
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 Florida Supreme Court denied an application for costs and attorney's fees from an estate to an unsuccessful will proponent, stating the Probate Judge has discretion to award such fees if the proponent acted in good faith and the litigation benefited the estate.
Yes, the Probate Judge has the discretion to award reasonable and necessary costs and attorney's fees from an estate to an unsuccessful proponent of a will, provided the proponent acted in good faith, the litigation benefited the estate, and any contingency for attorney's fees has materialized.
“The Probate Act embodies the settled law of the country on the subject and authorizes the Probate Judge in his sound discretion to award reasonable and necessary costs and attorneys' fees from the proceeds of the estate to an unsuccessful executor or proponent of the will or in adjusting and settling the affairs of the estate.”
Establishes the statutory basis for the Probate Judge's discretion in awarding fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sought costs and attorney's fees from the estate of Mrs. Graham after an unsuccessful attempt to probate her will. The application was based …
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 Probate Act cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes on to be heard on the application of appellee to be awarded costs and attorneys’ fees from the estate of Mrs. Graham in an attempt to pro*289bate a will that was decided against her. She predicates her application on good faith and Sections 51, 94, 124 and 158 of the Probate Act. The Probate Act embodies the settled law of the country on the subject and authorizes the Probate Judge in his sound discretion to award reasonable and necessary costs and attorneys’ fees from the proceeds of the estate to an unsuccessful executor or proponent of the will or in adjusting and settling the affairs of the estate. It must appear however that the executor of the estate or proponent of the will acted in good faith, that his conduct was free from fraud and if the attorneys’ fees were undertaken on a contingent basis, it must be shown that the contingency materialized.
The application is accordingly denied without prejudice to apply to the Probate Judge, and if appellee can show that appellee acted in good faith, that the litigation has benefitted the estate, and that as to attorneys’ fees if undertaken on a contingent basis and the contingency has materialized, then he may award such costs and attorneys’ fees as to him may seem just and proper.
It is so ordered.
BROWN, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
BUFORD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. of Letitia v. Graham, 156 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1945)…f Mrs. Newport and her attorneys, but without prejudice, and with permission to apply to the County Judge’s Court of Hillsborough County for the allowance of such costs, expenses and attorneys fees. Watts, et al., v. Newport, In Re: Graham’s Estate, 150 Fla. 288, 7 So. (2nd) 104. On May 22, 1942, by virtue of said permission, Mrs. Newport, two of her attorneys and the representatives of the third who was then deceased, filed in the County Judge’s Court of Hillsborough County their application to be allowed…1 / 3
-
In re Gleason's Estate. Redfearn v. Brunstetter, 74 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1954)…er which the will was procured, that their services were valuable to the estate and that they are entitled to be compensated from it. They rely on In re Bernays’ Estate, 150 Fla. 414, 7 So. 2d 444, 140 A.L.R. 830, and Watts v. Newport, 150 Fla. 288, 7 So. 2d 104, and Sections 732.14 and 734.01(2), F.S.A. to support their contention. Appellant contends that the services of appellees’ counsel were of no benefit to the estate whatever. He says that said services were in reality a detriment in that they caused…
-
Johnson v. Burleson, 61 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1952)…, the executor, shall generally be entitled to be paid his costs and fees for his attorneys out of the estate even though unsuccessful, but shall not be entitled to be paid if he is not acting in good faith. Watts v. Newport (In re Graham's Estate), 150 Fla. 288, 7 So. 2d 104; and Id., 151 Fla. 209, 9 So. 2d 417." This case is entirely different from those cases where an attempt is being made to probate a will or to prevent the probation of a will. The last paragraph of Section 732.14, F.S.A., covers the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence