Scott A. Weiss, Esq. v. Robin Abraham

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

SCOTT A. WEISS,
Appellant,

v.

ROBIN A. ABRAHAM,
Appellee.

No. 4D2025-1962

[May 27, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Natasha DePrimo, Judge; L.T. Case No.
062022CP006555A001CE.

Scott A. Weiss and R. Daniel Sirois of Scott A. Weiss, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case concerns an attorney’s entitlement to recover fees under
section 744.108(1), Florida Statutes (2023), which provides: “A guardian,
or 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.”

On behalf of the appellee, Robin Abraham (“Robin”), appellant Scott
Weiss petitioned for the appointment of an emergency temporary guardian
(“ETG”) for Joyce Olshen Abraham (“Joyce”), Robin’s mother. The petition
sought (1) the appointment of an attorney to represent Joyce in a summary
proceeding on the petition and (2) the appointment of a plenary emergency
temporary guardian for Joyce.

Appellant filed with the court a verified fact information sheet indicating
that Robin was the petitioner in Joyce’s guardianship case. Judge
Nicholas Lopane appointed an attorney to represent Joyce.
After a December 29, 2022 hearing, Judge Lopane granted the petition
to appoint an ETG, using the random process set up on the court’s “wheel”
system. This was apparently contrary to Robin’s wish to be appointed as
the ETG herself.

On February 8, 2023, with the court’s approval, appellant withdrew
from the case due to irreconcilable differences with Robin.

On February 27, 2023, Joyce died.

On March 3, 2023, appellant, as Robin’s former counsel, filed a petition
for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 744.108(1),
Florida Statutes (2023).

After a May 30, 2025 hearing, Judge Natasha DePrimo denied the
petition for fees and costs, concluding that section 744.108(1) applied only
to “attorneys who represent the ward, thus rendering services to the ward.”

In sum, this case involves a situation where an ETG was appointed, but
contrary to Robin’s request for her own appointment as the ETG, the court
appointed a neutral or independent ETG for the ward’s person and
property.

We agree with the Second District’s analysis of section 744.108(1) in In
re Guardianship of Beck, 204 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

The scenario here is similar to the facts in Beck. The Beck petitioner
sought the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of the
ward as well as the appointment of an ETG. Id. at 145–46. The trial court
appointed an ETG of the ward’s person and property. Id. at 146. The ward
died before a determination of incapacity and the appointment of a plenary
guardian was made. Id.

After the ward’s death, the Beck petitioner’s attorney sought
reimbursement under section 744.108(1). Id. The trial court denied the
fees request, ruling section 744.108(1) was “limited to situations where a
judicial determination of incapacity is found by the court . . . and an
appointment of a [plenary or limited] guardian over a ward is ordered.” Id.
at 147.

The Second District reversed the trial court, reasoning that, even
though only an ETG was appointed, a proper view of section 744.108(1)
was that the petitioner’s counsel “might be entitled to fees to the extent
that the petitioner’s request for the determination of incapacity and the

2
appointment of the guardian redounds to the benefit of the ward—a party
recognized under [section 744.108(1)].” Id. at 152. Beck remanded the
case “for the trial court to consider whether any portion of that
representation benefitted the ward—a category of represented person for
which fees might be awarded under section 744.108(1)—such that he
might be entitled to seek fees under the statute.” Id.

As the Second District did in Beck, we reverse and remand to the circuit
court to determine whether the appointment of the ETG redounded to the
benefit of the ward. The court may also consider Robin’s fact-based
argument as to whether she had retained appellant as her attorney to seek
the ETG. If the answer to both questions is yes, the court should
determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under
section 744.108(2), Fla. Stat. (2023).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

3