Case ID: so2d_160/html/0743-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re ESTATE of John P. CASSIDY, Deceased. The LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, a non-profit corporation under the laws of Illinois, Appellant, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, as Executor of the Estate of John P. Cassidy, deceased, and Effie Knowles, Administratrix Ad Litem of said estate, Appellees. CATHOLIC FOREIGN MISSION SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., a non-profit corporation under the laws of Illinois, Appellant, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, as Executor of the Estate of John P. Cassidy, deceased, and Effie Knowles, Administratrix Ad Litem of said estate, Appellees. ILLINOIS CITIZENS ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE, a non-profit corporation under the laws of Illinois, Appellant, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, as Executor of the Estate of John P. Cassidy, deceased, and Effie Knowles, Administratrix Ad Litem of said estate, Appellees.
    Nos. 63-607-63-609.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    Feb. 18, 1964.
    Carey, Terry, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens, Miami, for appellants Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic Foreign Mission Society, and Illinois Citizens Animal Welfare League.
    Shutts, Bowen, Simmons, Prevatt & Boureau, Miami, for appellee First National Bank.
    Russell C. Gay, Miami, and Roy L. Struble, Miami Beach, for appellee Effie Knowles.
    Before CARROLL, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

For their services as attorneys for an ad-ministratrix ad litem which resulted in recovering a large fund for the estate (see First National Bank of Miami v. Knowles, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 95; Knowles v. First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App. 1964, 159 So.2d 662), the county judge, after notice and hearing (§ 734.01(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) allowed fees of approximately 27% of the amount recovered.

Appellants who challenge the fee allowance are interested only indirectly. They are beneficiaries under the will of another decedent who, in turn, was entitled to a substantial share of the estate out of which the attorney fees were allowed. Appellants make several contentions: (1) that the court did not have authority to allow such fees and charge them against the entire estate, (2) that an initial fee contract which the attorneys had made with a beneficiary precluded the court allowance, and (3) that the allowance was excessive. We hold those contentions to be without merit. The court was authorized by law to award fees to the attorneys for their services, and for obtaining a fund for the benefit of the estate the court could properly allow attorney fees and charge them to such fund. See Lewis v. Gaillard, 70 Fla. 172, 69 So. 797; Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund of State of Florida v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157; 8 Fla.Jur., Costs, § 37. The contract which the attorneys or one of them had with the beneficiary was no reason to prevent the fee allowance, because in creating the fund for the estate the attorneys acted with court approval on behalf of the administrator ad litem. Moreover the court in its order found the attorneys’ services benefited the individual legatee in question “and the Petitioners (attorneys) were not representing any adverse or conflicting interest in his Estate, in creating this fund.” Finally, the allowance was not shown to be excessive. It was supported by evidence presented on behalf of the petitioning attorneys. The objectors presented no contrary evidence. The county judge expressly found the fees to be reasonable and that the attorneys had rendered “extraordinary services in creating and bringing a fund into this estate.”

For the reasons stated the order appealed from is affirmed.