CREATIVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION OF GEORGIA, A GEORGIA CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Creative Property Management, Inc., as court-appointed manager of a foreclosed apartment complex, sought attorney's fees for legal services rendered without prior court approval. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of fees, holding that when legal services benefit the estate and the court implicitly approves retention of counsel through its actions, reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded even without advance approval.
A receiver or court-appointed manager may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees for legal services that benefit the estate even without prior court approval, particularly when the court implicitly grants approval through its actions, such as hearing petitions filed by the manager's counsel and entering orders based on those petitions.
[1] A receiver may be allowed a reasonable sum for legal fees even without prior court approval if the legal services were required and benefited the estate.
[2] A trial court's order clarifying a receiver's duties, entered after the receiver petitioned the court with the aid of counsel, implies approval of the receiver's retentio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“if legal services are required and benefit the estate, a receiver may be allowed a reasonable sum for legal fees even when he did not obtain prior court approval for retaining such services”
Establishes the core holding that prior court approval is not an absolute requirement for recovering attorney's fees when services benefit the estate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 24, 1974, General Electric Credit Corporation filed a foreclosure action on a second mortgage for an apartment complex called Fairview Villas…
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
PER CURIAM.
This interlocutory appeal is from an order denying attorney’s fees.
Appellee herein, General Electric Credit Corporation, on April 24, 1974 instituted an action for foreclosure of its second mortgage on an apartment complex which is located in Dade County, Florida, known as Fairview Villas.
On April 30, 1974, by court order, Creative Property Management, Inc., appellant herein, was appointed to manage the subject property.
However, this order was silent as to whether appel lant was authorized to retain counsel.
On May 4, 1974 appellee took possession and control of the complex and retained and utilized counsel during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings to advise it on the nature of its duties and responsibilities as manager.
In July 1974, through the aid of its counsel, appellant filed an application for instructions in the circuit court. After hearing argument of counsel thereon, the court entered an order which clarified the duties of the appellant. Subsequently, a final judgment of foreclosure was entered and a public sale of the property was held. Thereupon, General Electric Credit Corporation filed a motion to discharge Creative Property Management, Inc. from its management duties. Creative Property Management then filed a petition praying for an order awarding its attorney a reasonable fee for the services he rendered and reimbursing him for the expenses he advanced on behalf of Creative Property Management, Inc. in its capacity as manager of the subject property. After a hearing thereon, the court denied the motion for attorney’s fees and this interlocutory appeal followed.
We reverse.
Although the better practice would be for the receiver to obtain approval of the court prior to the engaging of counsel and rendition of services by him; nevertheless, if legal services are required and benefit the estate, a receiver may be allowed a reasonable sum for legal fees even when he did not obtain prior court approval for retaining such services. Lewis v. Gramil Corp., Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 174; In Re Fredcris, Incorporated, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 901.
In the case at bar, when the appellant through its counsel petitioned the court to clarify its management duties and responsibilities and the court, after granting a hearing on the petition, entered such an order, it is clear that the subject property benefited by 'these services rendered by appellant’s attorney. In addition, we find that in hearing the petition filed by appellant’s attorney and entering an order thereon, the trial court impliedly granted approval of appellant’s retention of counsel., to aid in the management of the apartment complex.
Accordingly, the order with respect to the denial of attorney’s fees herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to grant appellant a reasonable attorney’s fee based upon the evidence presented at the hearing therefor. Reversed and remanded with directions.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tanner v. Ledington, 513 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…tion for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. A receiver is generally entitled to compensation from the estate for legal services rendered in protecting the estate. Creative Property Management, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp. of Georgia, 314 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). Here, however, Holt incurred fees and costs in defending her own actions as the receiver. Any benefit derived from the legal services performed at Holt’s behest accrued to her individually and not to the estate. Hence, the trial…
-
Fortini v. de Palma (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…Sundeman defending his failure to file an inventory arguably should have been paid by him rather than Optimum because those fees were to defend his actions, not to benefit the estate. Cf. Creative Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. of Ga., 314 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fredcris, 108 So. 2d at 904. Indeed, Sundeman had a personal interest in excusing the necessity of filing an inventory because under rule 1.620(b), he would have had to bear the costs of creating the inventory since it was u…
-
Palmetto Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. DAY, 512 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…er review. See Lewis v. Gramil Corp., 94 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla.1957); Tanner v. Tanner, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Wilson v. Wilson, 362 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Creative Property Management, Inc. v. General Elec. Credit Corp. of Ga., 314 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Aerovias Internacional Balboa, S.A. v. Torres, 176 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see also Feemster v. Schurkman, 291 So. 2d 622, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Gramil Corp., 94 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1957)
- In re Petition for the Involuntary Dissolution of Fredcris, 108 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)