IN RE THE ESTATE OF CHARLES M. MCARTHUR, DECEASED. NADEAN HUFF, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE.
v.
JOHN A. GENTRY, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nadean Huff, a beneficiary of the McAr-thur estate, appeals an award of attorney’s fees adjudicated against her in her individual capacity. The case was tried in the probate division in which the estate is being administered apparently by consent of the parties. The prevailing attorney, John A. Gentry, cross appeals, complaining that the award is inadequate. Both sides ably presented their case before the trial court and here, which has been helpful.
We are guided by the general rule that the amount of an attorney fee award is a matter of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. In re Estate of Griffis, 399 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The trial court heard expert testimony and based its determination of a fee on the factors set forth in Discipli nary Rule 2-106(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of attorneys. We are in no position (nor should we be) to second guess the reasonableness of the fee. Applying the standard established in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) we cannot say that no reasonable man could take the view taken by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strulowitz v. The Cadle Co., II, Inc., 839 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…retion ... is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.”); In re Estate of McArthur, 443 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA1984). Applying this standard, we cannot say that no reasonable person could take the trial court’s view. Reasonable people could differ as to what constitutes a reasonable search and what entails impractical or extraordinary effort. C…
-
Gentry v. Nadean O. Huff, 464 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…GLICKSTEIN, Judge, dissenting. This is the second appearance here for these adversaries — attorney and client. [*1308] The first resolved the question of the attorney’s fee for which the client was responsible. Huff v. Gentry, 443 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The question presented here is whether the attorney is entitled to the actual rate of return earned on the unpaid fees while they were invested in escrow pending resolution of the dispute over the fee. The trial court conclude…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- In re Est. OF Stanton Griffis, 399 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)