IN RE ESTATE OF ALEK G. LUNGA, DECEASED. MARIA LUNGA, APPELLANT,
v.
MALLORY HORTON AND SAMUEL J. HANNON, 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.
Maria Lunga, as administratrix of her husband's estate, appeals an order awarding $45,000 in attorneys fees to Mallory Horton and Samuel J. Hannon for services rendered in probating the estate. The court affirms the fee award, finding it was supported by evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
The court held that the trial court did not err in awarding the attorneys fees. First, there was ample competent evidence of an employment relationship between Horton and Maria Lunga through her guardian. Second, the fee award was reasonable and supported by expert testimony given the successful probate of a substantial estate and the significant work performed.
[1] An attorney is entitled to compensation from an estate for ordinary and extraordinary services rendered, upon appropriate petition and proceedings.
[2] Evidence of an attorney's employment by a guardian during a period of incompetency, and subsequent services rendered, supports a claim for compensation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“they will be entitled to receive from the estate fees for such ordinary and extraordinary services as may be fixed by the probate judge, upon appropriate petition and proceedings thereunder”
Establishes the prior court's determination that Horton and Hannon were entitled to receive attorneys fees from the estate for representing Maria Lunga.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorton and Hannon represented Maria Lunga and the estate in probating the will of Alek G. Lunga. The attorneys performed 250 to 300 hours of work over…
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 Employment Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria Lunga, individually and as admin-istratrix of the estate of Alek G. Lunga, appeals from an order awarding attorneys fees in the amount of $45,000 to appellees, Mallory Horton and Samuel J. Hannon, for services rendered by them to Maria Lunga and the estate.
This case has been before this court on three prior occasions. Suffice it to say, the factual background giving rise to this litigation is outlined in Lungu v. Walters, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 99; In re Estate of Lunga, Fla.App.1974, 298 So. 2d 420; Lungu v. Horton, Fla.App.1974, 298 So. 2d 423. In Lungu v. Horton, supra, this court held with reference to Horton and Hannon, that, “they will be entitled to receive from the estate fees for such ordinary and extraordinary services as may be fixed by the probate judge, upon appropriate petition and proceedings thereunder.” Pursuant and subsequent thereto, a petition for attorneys fees was filed by appellees. Hearing was held by the trial court, at which time evidence was presented by appellees only, which resulted in the order awarding attorneys fees herein appealed. Appellant presents two points on appeal. (1) That the trial court erred in awarding appellee, Horton, a fee for representing appellant because there was no proof of an employment relationship between Horton and appellant. (2) That the awarding of attorneys fees to appellees, Horton and Hannon, was excessive and an abuse of discretion in view of the evidence and testimony.
Appellant’s first point is without merit because this court has previously determined, in its opinion in Lungu v. Horton, supra, that Horton and Hannon were entitled to receive attorneys fees from the estate for representing Maria Lunga. Also, there is ample competent evidence that Horton was employed to represent appellant, Maria Lunga, by her guardian during the period of her incompetency and thereafter, and performed services for her as well as the estate, for which he is entitled to compensation. Addressing ourselves to appellant’s contention that the award of attorneys fees was excessive, the record reflects that the award was supported by competent testimony that the attorneys were successful in probating a will which made Maria Lunga, who was a non-heir at law of the decedent, the legatee of the entire substantial estate of more than $280,000 and performed 250 to 300 hours of work over several years in so doing. It is important to note that the appellant adduced no testimony as to the reasonableness of the attorneys fees and that appellees had expert testimony well within the ambit of the fee allowed. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in the award of attorneys fees. See Johnson v. Kruglak, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 617, 620; Lodding v. Dunn, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 560.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mallory Horton and Samuel Hannon v. Koppen, 345 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: In re Estate of Lunga (Lunga v. Horton), 322 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 367 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…tness) were excessive. With respect to the attorney’s fee, the amount of the award was well within the range of expert testimony and, therefore, we find no abuse of discretion. See Posner v. Posner, 315 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1975); In Re Estate of Lunga, 322 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). [*1106] We also find no abuse of discretion in the $11,624.76 awarded to Florida Power & Light to compensate its expert witness in that Section 90.231(2), Florida Statutes (1977) provides that costs may be taxed for expert witnes…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Kiibler, 382 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Posner v. Posner, 315 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1975); All-Star Ins. Corp. v. Scandia, Inc., 353 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); In re Estate of Lunga, 322 So. 2d 560 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).…
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
- Voyle C. Johnson v. Kruglak, 246 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Madaline Lodding and Woodrow C. Lodding v. Dunn, 251 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- In re Est. of Alek G. Lunga v. Kruglak, 298 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Lungu v. Walters, 198 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Lungu v. Mallory Horton and Samuel J. Hannon, 298 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)