Morrison v. Estate of Salem

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrison v. Estate of Salem

848 So. 2d 1164, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5676, 2003 WL 1916765

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 23, 2003·No. No. 3D02-2155·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant attorney appeals an order denying her petition for payment of additional .legal fees in a probate matter. Based upon the record evidence adduced below, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the same. See DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 597 So.2d 248, 250 (Fla.1992) (stating that “the award of attorney’s fees is a matter committed to sound judicial discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”). See also Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of Am., 769 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (same). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant attorney appeals an order denying her petition for payment of additional .legal fees in a probate matter. Based upon the record evidence adduced below, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the same. See DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 597 So.2d 248, 250 (Fla.1992) (stating that “the award of attorney’s fees is a matter committed to sound judicial discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”). See also Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of Am., 769 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (same). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Morrison v. Estate of Salem, 848 So. 2d 1164, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5676, 2003 WL 1916765 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

848 So. 2d 1164 (Morrison v. Estate of Salem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related