Opinion ID: 1731936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the expense and cost items

Text: The guardian ad litem raised no specific objections to any individual item of expense, but did raise a general objection that the expenses seemed too high. Unless there is a specific objection to an expense item, the court ordinarily should approve the item. The burden of proving correctness of items shifts to the party claiming them only after objections have been filed to specific items. See Hines v. Baldwin, 211 Ala. 322, 100 So. 466 (1924). An examination of the ledger sheets submitted to the lower court reveals that the claimed expenses are of the variety considered appropriate for reimbursement, i.e., travel expenses, copying costs, filing fees, etc. FNBT does not take issue with LWL & J's contentions relating to expenses, nor does FNBT address the double payment of $500 to the expert witness, which was obviously an oversight of the court. Clearly, the trial court erred by ordering this payment after it had been paid. The judgment is due to be, and hereby is, affirmed as to the disbursement of attorneys' fees, and reversed as to the one-third reduction of expenses and the $500 overpayment. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.