IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ANNE RUPPERT. HENRY E. NOBLES, APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH E. HANSEN AND MARILYN S. MANGAN, COGUARDIANS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A guardianship attorney appealed the trial court's reduction of his attorneys' fees from $3,630 to $700 without adequate explanation. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial judge abused his discretion by disregarding the general master's recommendation without making sufficient findings.
The trial court abused its discretion when it disregarded the general master's report without finding that the report was clearly erroneous or that the master had misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. When parties request findings or question the court's reasoning, the trial court should express findings necessary to permit appellate review.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it disregards a general master's report without finding the report clearly erroneous or that the master misconceived the legal ef…
[2] When a trial court reduces a general master's fee recommendation, it should express findings in its order or on the record, especially when appellate review is necessary.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We will not burden guardianship division courts with a time consuming requirement that they make findings of fact to support every award of guardian fees. But when the parties request such findings or call into question the court's reasoning, and such findings would be necessary to permit appellate review of the matter, the court should express findings in its order or on the record.”
Establishes the standard requiring trial courts to provide findings when fee awards are questioned on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court appointed a general master to hold an evidentiary hearing on Nobles' petition for attorneys' fees in a guardianship case. The general …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
In this guardianship case, Henry Nobles, attorney for the guardianship petitioner, Adult Protective Services Division of the Florida Department of Children and Families, appeals the trial court’s order which reduced his attorneys’ fee award as recommended by the general master. We reverse.
A recitation of the services provided by appellant to the ward is unnecessary, except to note that the general master entertained an evidentiary hearing concerning appellant’s petition for attorneys’ fees and recommended the amount of $3630. Several months later, the trial judge entered an order striking the recommendation of the general master and reducing Nobles’ fees to $700. The order contained no explanation for the reduction. The trial judge later entered a second order, after a nonevidentiary hearing attended by Nobles, asserting that attorneys’ fees were reduced because Nobles failed to “follow through on this case subjecting Mrs. Rup-pert to potential further exploitation.” Nobles requested a rehearing on the issue of his fees, which was denied.
While there is no transcript of the proceeding before the trial judge, we are constrained to recognize the apparent inadequacy of either order to address the recommendation of the general master or to make reference to any evidence otherwise available to the trial judge. In In re Guardianship of Sitter, 779 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the court stated:
We will not burden guardianship division courts with a time consuming requirement that they make findings of fact to support every award of guardian fees. But when the parties request such findings or call into question the court’s reasoning, and such findings would be necessary to permit appellate review of the matter, the court should express findings in its order or on the record.
Id. at 348.
The court abused its discretion when it disregarded the general master’s report without a finding that the report was clearly erroneous or that the master had misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. DeClements v. DeClements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
We therefore reverse and remand for a proceeding consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carls v. Carls, 890 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…roneous. Garcia v. Garcia, 743 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). On appeal,-this court’s role is to determine if the trial court abused its discretion when it rejected a general master’s report and recommendation. In re Guardianship of Ruppert, 787 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In the present case, the general master compared the relative financial positions of the parties at the time of the final judgment of dissolution and’ at the time the petition was filed. He found that the Former Wife’s inco…
Authorities Cited
- de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- In re Guardianship of Albert Sitter. Nicky Valentini v. State, 779 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)