IRAMA VALDES
v.
IN RE: ESTATE OF ANDRES JESUS CAPETILLO
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 probate court's award of attorney's fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such an award will be affirmed if the court considered the nature of services rendered, their necessity, and the reasonableness of the charges.
[1] An award of attorney's fees in a probate proceeding, whether based on contract or statute, is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, and the probate court shoul…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The key word in the present statute is that the fee should be 'reasonable.'”
In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 335–36 (Fla. 1991), cited for the standard governing attorney's fee awards in probate matters.
Irama Valdes appealed a circuit court decision regarding attorney's fees in the estate of Andres Jesus Capetillo. The probate court awarded fees that …
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Fee Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 17, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0030
Lower Tribunal No. 21-910-CP-02
Irama Valdes,
Appellant,
vs.
In Re: Estate of Andres Jesus Capetillo,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge.
Irama Valdes, P.A., and Irama Valdes, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 733.6171(5), Fla. Stat. (2025); In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 335–36 (Fla. 1991) (“The key word in the present statute is that the fee should be ‘reasonable."); Estate of Brock, 695 So. 2d 714, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[A] probate court should consider the nature of the services rendered and the necessity for their performance, together with the reasonableness of the charges."); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion."); Harris v. Estate of Harris, 307 So. 3d 821, 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Our standard of review for an award of attorney's fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- In re Est. OF Lester Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1991)