- Court
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 4D2025-1962
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judges
- Gross, May and Klingensmith, JJ. (Per Curiam)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded with instructions
Background
Attorney Scott Weiss petitioned on behalf of Robin Abraham for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian (ETG) for Robin’s mother, Joyce Olshen Abraham. The court appointed an attorney to represent Joyce and, after a hearing, granted the petition — but appointed a neutral ETG through the court’s random “wheel” system rather than appointing Robin as she had desired. Weiss withdrew from the case in February 2023 due to irreconcilable differences with Robin, and Joyce died shortly thereafter.
Weiss then filed a petition for attorney’s fees and costs under section 744.108(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that “an attorney who has rendered services to the ward or to the guardian on the ward’s behalf, is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred on behalf of the ward.” The trial court denied the petition, concluding that section 744.108(1) applies only to “attorneys who represent the ward, thus rendering services to the ward.”
Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed. Adopting the Second District’s analysis in In re Guardianship of Beck, 204 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), the court held that section 744.108(1) is not limited to attorneys who directly represent the ward. In Beck, the Second District held that a petitioner’s attorney may be entitled to fees “to the extent that the petitioner’s request for the determination of incapacity and the appointment of the guardian redounds to the benefit of the ward.”
The court remanded for the trial court to determine: (1) whether the appointment of the ETG redounded to the benefit of the ward; and (2) whether Robin had retained Weiss as her attorney to seek the ETG (a fact-based argument raised by the appellee). If both answers are yes, the court should determine the amount of reasonable fees under section 744.108(2).
Key Takeaways
- Section 744.108(1) is not limited to attorneys who directly represent the ward; it extends to attorneys whose services benefit the ward.
- An attorney who petitions for appointment of an emergency temporary guardian may recover fees if the appointment benefited the ward.
- The fee entitlement exists even where the court appoints a different guardian than the one the petitioner requested.
- The ward’s subsequent death does not extinguish a fee claim that arose during the guardianship proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a practical problem for guardianship attorneys: whether they can recover fees when the guardianship they helped initiate benefits the ward even though the court doesn’t appoint the petitioner’s preferred guardian. By adopting the Second District’s Beck framework, the Fourth DCA establishes that the relevant inquiry is whether the attorney’s services benefited the ward — not whether the attorney directly represented the ward or achieved the petitioner’s desired outcome. This provides significant protection for attorneys undertaking guardianship petition work and eliminates a disincentive to filing guardianship petitions where the petitioner may not ultimately be appointed.