Sugarman v. Galbut

Decision Date23 April 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-1330,96-1330
Citation693 So.2d 640
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D1008 Carl SUGARMAN, in his capacity as personal Representative of the Estate of Mort Levin, Appellant, v. Abraham GALBUT, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Peter Ticktin, Boca Raton, and Jane Hendricks, Miami, for appellant.

Thomas J. Morgan, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, FLETCHER and SORONDO, JJ.

SORONDO, Judge.

The Appellant/Petitioner, Carl Sugarman, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mort Levin, deceased (the Estate), appeals to this Court a Final Order of the lower court granting: 1) a Petition for Order Authorizing Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs to Appellee/Respondent Abraham Galbut, Esq. and his law firm, as attorneys for the guardian of the person; 2) a Petition for Order Authorizing Payment of Compensation to Galbut, as the guardian of the person; and 3) a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs for Thomas J. Morgan, P.A., as attorney for the guardian of the person.

On June 17, 1991, Galbut was appointed successor guardian of the person (guardian) of Mort Levin (Levin), a ward. Galbut performed services until Levin's death on April 24, 1994. These services also included Galbut acting as the attorney for the guardian. On July 25, 1994, Galbut petitioned for his fees for services as both guardian and as attorney for the guardian. A hearing was set for December 15, 1994. In addition, the duties of the attorney for the guardian were taken over by Thomas J. Morgan, Esq. in December 1994, at the time of the first scheduled hearing for fees.

Levin's Estate failed to make any objections to the petitions for fees until the December 15, 1994 hearing, when the Estate made oral objections, resulting in the Court resetting the matter for hearing on January 30, 1995. The Estate alleged that Galbut was negligent and responsible for Levin's death. On January 8, 1995, the Estate filed a Motion to Strike the Petition for Fees filed by Galbut. The next day, January 9, 1995, the Estate filed Levin's death certificate. On January 10, 1995, the Estate filed formal objections and made a request for jury trial.

On January 20, 1995, Galbut filed his Response to the Motion to Strike his Fees, moved to strike the jury trial demanded in the Motion to Strike his Fees, and responded to the separate motion for jury trial. Also on January 20, 1995, the Estate filed a Petition for Surcharge against Galbut, as guardian of the person, for his negligence. Galbut's attorney moved to dismiss, and on April 25, 1995, the trial court entered an Order on all pending motions. The Court dismissed the Amended Petition for Surcharge, with prejudice, finding that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted because the Petition improperly sought relief for alleged torts. The Court also entered an order denying the Estate's Motion for Jury Trial and Motion to Strike the Petition for Fees for lack of jurisdiction.

In May of 1995, the Estate petitioned this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the Estate's right to trial by jury at a hearing awarding guardian fees and attorney's fees. The Estate also petitioned this Court for a Writ of Prohibition, contending that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to award either guardian or attorney's fees. This Court denied these petitions.

On June 2, 1995, Galbut's attorney filed a motion below for attorney's fees under § 744.108 and § 57.105, Fla. Stat., for services rendered in defending Galbut against the Estate's Petition for Surcharge and other motions, including the defense to the motion for jury trial and the motion to strike the petition for fees. Attorney's fees were also sought in this Court for the defense against the Estate's Petition for the Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition. This Court denied attorney's fees on November 16, 1995.

On June 12, 1995, the Estate appealed the Order Dismissing with Prejudice the Petition for Surcharge. In Estate of Levin v. Galbut, 666 So.2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), this Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Amended Petition for Surcharge because it failed to state a cause of action for surcharge as a matter of law. However, to ensure that the dismissal of the Petition would not have any preclusive effect on the pending tort action in the circuit court's general jurisdiction division, this Court held that the dismissal be "without prejudice." This Court denied Galbut's motion for attorney's fees on that appeal.

Finally, a hearing was set by the lower court on March 4, 1996, on Galbut's Petition for Fees as guardian of the person and Galbut's attorney's (Morgan) Petition for Fees and Costs in representing the guardian. At that hearing an attorney's fees expert testified regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and services performed by both Galbut and Morgan.

The lower court awarded fees and costs and ordered that the award be paid from the assets of the Estate. The lower court awarded Galbut and his law firm, as attorneys for the guardian, $9,000.00 for fees for services rendered from April 15, 1991 through July 20, 1994; awarded Galbut, as guardian of the person, $4,000.00 for fees for his services rendered from July 19,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Moreno v. Allen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 23 Abril 1997
    ...by the apparent availability of attorney's fees or of the willingness of the probate court to award them, see Sugarman v. Galbut, 693 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and so did not expressly forbid these awards in our prior opinion. This fact, however, does not preclude the application of the......
  • Golden v. Goldberg, No. 3D19-2174
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...Finding no reversible error, we affirm. See Schlesinger v. Jacob, 240 So. 3d 75, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; see also Sugarman v. Galbut, 693 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).2 Affirmed.1 Prior to Jones's death, the lower court had appointed Romano as her guardian.2 Appellants also appeal the prob......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT