Jones v. Dunning

661 So. 2d 941, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10988, 1995 WL 613191
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 20, 1995
DocketNo. 94-1862
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 941 (Jones v. Dunning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Dunning, 661 So. 2d 941, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10988, 1995 WL 613191 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an award of guardianship fees and costs. The order provides:

1. That the sum of $87,447.50 are reasonable fees for services rendered as guardian of the Ward and incurred expenses from May 05, 1988 through September 30, 1993.
2. That ELAINE J. DUNNING, as such guardian, is authorized and directed to pay the amount of $91,872.50 as guardian’s compensation and expenses to ELAINE J. DUNNING from the assets of the guardianship estate of NORMA S. JONES, and include such disbursement in the next annual accounting of this guardianship to be filed with this Court.

As can be seen, the order suffers internal conflict. Perhaps the first paragraph is the fees, exclusive of expenses, and the second paragraph includes expenses, thus the difference. That is not clear, however, so a new order citing record support should be entered.

[942]*942It is our determination that guardians of the estate, like personal representatives and lawyers seeking fees, should follow the guidelines set out in section 733.617(1), Florida Statutes (1987) and Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1146 (Fla.1985). See also In re Estate of Platt, 686 So.2d 328 (Fla.1981). In order to provide for meaningful appellate review the order awarding fees and expenses in all such cases, attorneys fees, personal representative fees and guardians fees, should specifically set out the record basis for the award and otherwise comply with the intent of Rowe, Platt and the statute. This should include an itemization of all awarded expenses.

The order is quashed and this cause remanded for a new hearing and order.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sanford v. Howard
94 So. 3d 711 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Thorpe v. Myers
67 So. 3d 338 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Marvin & Kay Lichtman Foundation v. In re Estate of Lichtman
773 So. 2d 1232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Anderson v. Sun Trust Bank/North
679 So. 2d 307 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 So. 2d 941, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10988, 1995 WL 613191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-dunning-fladistctapp-1995.