MACY KATHERINE BETZOLD WHEELOCK, etc. v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF YVONNE BETZOLD
This text of MACY KATHERINE BETZOLD WHEELOCK, etc. v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF YVONNE BETZOLD (MACY KATHERINE BETZOLD WHEELOCK, etc. v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF YVONNE BETZOLD) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D20-1501 and 3D20-1502 Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-4101, 14-4787 ________________
Macy Katherine Betzold Wheelock, etc., Appellant,
vs.
In re: Guardianship of Yvonne Betzold, Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne Colodny, Judge.
Law Offices of Roy R. Lustig, P.A., and Roy R. Lustig; Law Offices of Joy Maxwell Carr, and Joy Maxwell Carr, for appellant.
Joyce Law, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Appellant Macy Katherine Betzold Wheelock appeals the circuit court’s
order granting attorney’s fees in favor of Appellee the Guardianship Estate
under section 744.108, Florida Statutes (2021).
Wheelock challenges the court’s order on two grounds. First, she
argues that the Guardianship Estate is not entitled to attorney’s fees for any
appellate work because it did not obtain approval to defend appeals as
required by section 744.441. Second, she argues that the court’s order is
deficient because it did not address objections raised during the evidentiary
hearing or make specific findings to support the reasonableness of the
amount awarded.
We affirm without further discussion on the issue of entitlement, but
reverse and remand the amount of fees awarded. To determine the
reasonableness of the amount, the court must be guided by section
744.108(2). See Jones v. Dunning, 661 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
(“In order to provide for meaningful appellate review the order awarding fees
. . . should specifically set out the record basis for the award . . . .”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MACY KATHERINE BETZOLD WHEELOCK, etc. v. IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF YVONNE BETZOLD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macy-katherine-betzold-wheelock-etc-v-in-re-guardianship-of-yvonne-fladistctapp-2021.