PAMELA L. ALTMAN, etc. v. SHEILA E. BROWN

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 20-1771
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 5, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1771 Lower Tribunal No. 18-35993 ________________

Pamela L. Altman, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Sheila E. Brown, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.

Akerman LLP and Diane G. DeWolf (Tallahassee) and Dale Noll, for appellant.

Agentis PLLC and Christopher B. Spuches and Jason A. Martorella, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Pamela L. Altman, appeals an order which (1) removed her as a trustee of the relevant trust under section 736.0706, Florida Statutes

(2020); (2) imposed a $134,000 surcharge upon her, ordered the amount

paid into a specific trust income account within sixty days, and further ruled

that the surcharge was without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ request for further

surcharges or damages in the case; and (3) determined that the plaintiffs are

entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in connection with their motion for

Altman’s removal as a trustee and for surcharge.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to the extent Altman

seeks review of the trial court’s determination that the plaintiffs are entitled

to attorney’s fees. An order which merely determines the right to attorney’s

fees without setting the amount is a nonfinal, non-appealable order. Garcia

v. Valladares, 99 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). To the extent Altman

seeks review of that portion of the order directing her to deposit money into

the trust income account within sixty days, we exercise our discretion to treat

the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash

that portion of the order. See People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 318 So. 3d

583, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Courts have consistently found that an order

resolving only part of a civil lawsuit by requiring a party to make an interim

payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved presents the

type of irreparable harm and departure from the essential requirements of

2 the law remediable by issuance of a writ of certiorari.”); see also Mohler v.

Elliott, 332 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). In all other respects, the order

is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction; petition

granted and the portion of order requiring payment within sixty days is

quashed.