Donner v. Donner
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-162,77-162 |
| Citation | 346 So.2d 1069 |
| Parties | Charles N. DONNER, Appellant, v. Margo DONNER, formerly known as Margot Donner, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellant.
No appearance by counsel for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.
This action was commenced by Margo Donner, formerly known as Margot Donner, filing a complaint to set aside certain property settlement agreements.
After the pleadings closed, the parties stipulated for the appointment of a special master and, upon such stipulation, an order of reference was entered appointing Shelby Highsmith (a former circuit judge) as special master to conduct a trial upon the issues in the cause, to make his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and report same to the court. Thereafter, the master conducted hearings on five different days and received oral argument on another day from opposing counsel. The matter was referred to him by order on September 3, 1975; he heard final argument on April 14, 1976, and filed his five-page special master's report on June 2, 1976. In the report, he found that the defendant, Charles N Donner, had committed a fraud upon his former wife as to his net worth, he having indicated to her it was approximately $3,000,000.00 when, in fact, he had a net worth of approximately $7,000,000.00. He also made other misrepresentations relative to the value of certain corporate stock, as a result of which the special master recommended that the property settlement agreements be set aside; that the parties, as near as possible, be returned to the status quo prior to the execution of said agreements, and that further hearings be held to determine the alimony and property rights of Margo Donner.
Thereafter, the special master filed a motion for the determination and award of special master's fee. An affidavit in support of said motion indicated that the master reviewed 17 legal instruments and memorandums of law; that he received 22 pieces of correspondence; that he prepared 7 pieces of correspondence; that, in addition to 5 days of final hearings, he had 4 other days of hearings or conferences with counsel as well as a final day for oral argument. He also indicated that he reviewed the complete court file, researched the law, examined certain exhibits, had numerous telephone conversations, and reviewed all exhibits admitted into evidence and the transcript of testimony. In addition to the affidavit, at the time of the hearing on the motion to fix special master's fees, the master indicated that he had spent in excess of 150 hours on the matter and that the exhibits exceeded, by count, 14,000 pages; that the transcript of testimony was apparently lengthy but the actual number of pages does not appear from the limited record. The special master indicated that he thought a reasonable fee was $20,000.00, and there was expert testimony to support this amount. The trial court noted, and we do also, that the parties to this cause were represented by diligent adversaries, two fine advocates, which would have required strong efforts on the part of the special master to conduct the proceedings in a fair and orderly manner. Following the hearing, the trial judge awarded the $20,000.00 fee to the special master, to be paid by Charles N. Donner. This appeal ensued. It is urged that the chancellor erred in exercising his discretion in the amount of the fee awarded.
Today, in Florida, this is clearly a discretionary matter with a chancellor. See: Section 69.051, Florida Statutes (1975). Prior to this statute, we had statutes that fixed statutory fees and had other statutes providing for fees for extraordinary services. An examination of authorities in Florida indicates that in Marion Mortgage Company v. Moorman, 100 Fla. 1522, 131 So. 650 (1930), an extraordinary fee for a master in the amount of $2,500.00 was disallowed and the master was limited to the then statutory fee; in Cohn v. Cohn, 160 Fla. 619...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guthartz v. Lewis
...rents therefor as shown in the latest rent schedule approved pursuant to this section...."2 Guthartz relies on Donner v. Donner, 346 So.2d 1069 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). While the special Master's fee in the present case exceeds the hourly rate in Donner, we do not read that case as establishing a......
-
Ainsworth v. Dalton
...511 (Tex.1980); Crest Finance Co. v. First State Bank of Westmont, 109 Ill.App.2d 462, 248 N.E.2d 809, 811 (1969); Donner v. Donner, 346 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.App.1977); Shuman v. Shuman, 195 Pa.Super. 145, 170 A.2d 597 (1961). In making the the sum allowed must be fair and reasonable, havi......
-
Clark v. Finger, 5D99-3173.
...160 Fla. 619, 36 So.2d 199 (1948). At present, section 69.051 gives the trial court discretion to award such fees.1Donner v. Donner, 346 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Thus, we must review this award on an abuse of discretion We agree with Donner that a special master's fee should not be ba......