Levenson v. Oliver, A91A1936
| Decision Date | 21 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1936,A91A1936 |
| Citation | 413 S.E.2d 501,202 Ga.App. 157 |
| Parties | LEVENSON v. OLIVER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Louis Levenson & Associates, Louis Levenson, pro se.
Vivian D. Egan, Palmer & Berman, Jeffrey N. Berman, Atlanta, and Antje Rath Kingma, pro se.
Mary Margaret Oliver, pro se.
On December 17, 1990, Ingeborg Margit Rath and Department of Family & Children's Services ("DFACS") caseworker Susan Hill filed a petition, pro se, in the Probate Court of DeKalb County to restore Rath's capacity as an adult. The affidavit of Rath's personal guardian, Ralph Mitchell, was filed in support of the petition and a physician's affidavit was filed, wherein it was deposed that Rath is not mentally or physically incapacitated; that Rath is capable of managing her own affairs and that Rath's "first [psychiatric] hospitalization now appears to have been a gross stress reaction to a very painful divorce from her husband." The probate court appointed a physician or applied psychologist to evaluate Rath and ordered Rath to attend the evaluation.
On January 9, 1991, attorney Louis Levenson filed an entry of appearance and a demand for a jury trial on Rath's behalf. On February 4, 1991, the court appointed physician and applied psychologist reported to the probate court that Rath is restored to capacity and that she is capable of managing her own affairs. On February 12, 1991, Rath's daughter, Antje Rath Kingma, filed a pro se objection to the restoration of capacity.
On April 11, 1991, the guardian of Rath's property, attorney Mary Margaret Oliver, challenged attorney Levenson's bill for attorney fees in the amount of $6,301.25. More specifically, attorney Oliver requested that "a Guardian ad Litem [be appointed] to determine the appropriateness of said fees, and thereafter determine whether an Order should issue relative to the approval of payment of said fees as set forth in the said affidavit of Louis Levenson for services rendered." Jeffrey N. Berman was appointed guardian ad litem and Mr. Berman objected to the amount of attorney fees charged by attorney Levenson.
On April 30, 1991, a "CONSENT ORDER AND JUDGMENT" was entered wherein attorney Levenson, attorney Oliver (guardian of the property of Ingeborg Margit Rath), Ingeborg Margit Rath, Antje Rath Kingma and "DFACS" caseworker Susan Hill, agreed that the guardianship of Rath's person be terminated and that the guardianship of Rath's property be extended and administered by attorney Oliver. A hearing was also conducted on April 30, 1991, on the challenge to attorney Levenson's bill for fees in the amount of $6,301.25. Attorney Oliver then stated, "I have performed in a different way in relation to this file, and having reviewed all those matters, I believe the ... request for payment of attorney fees is high and I would ask the court to reduce it in whatever form the court deems appropriate." Attorney Oliver further stated that attorney Levenson's fees were excessive because the fees were more than half of the available cash assets of Rath's estate. She later testified that "a reasonable attorney fee would be about $3,000."
On May 7, 1991, the probate court entered an order and awarded attorney Levenson fees in the amount of $3,500. 1 Attorney Levenson filed an appeal from this order. Held:
1. Attorney Oliver contends attorney Levenson has no standing to assert an appeal from the award of attorney fees, arguing that attorney Levenson is not a party in the case sub judice. This contention is without merit. OCGA § 29-2-22(b) authorizes appeals from judgments awarding attorney fees in actions stemming from guardianship proceedings.
2. Attorney Levenson contends the trial court erred in failing to award attorney fees in the amount of $6,301.25. This contention is without merit.
We find no authority which authorizes an incapacitated adult to hire an attorney without permission from the court or the legal guardian. Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anaya v. Coello
...therefore, no one with the capacity to do so had retained Rosner to pursue Aguilera's personal injury claim.4 Levenson v. Oliver, 202 Ga.App. 157, 159(2), 413 S.E.2d 501 (1991). Because the undisputed evidence adduced established as a matter of law that no attorney-client relationship exist......
-
Martin, In re
...have any control over the selection of counsel and Calhoun's arguments in this regard are specious. See generally Levenson v. Oliver, 202 Ga.App. 157(2), 413 S.E.2d 501 (1991). 4. Calhoun argues that the probate court erred in failing to follow OCGA § 29-5-2. She claims that under this stat......