IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: Fern S. DAVIS (2020)

Although the proceedings below were not conducted in an ideal manner, we can find no basis to reverse the order on appeal for this Appellant, save for one issue. From our review, the circuit court erred when it granted Appellees' motion for attorney's fees based on the circuit court's inherent authority to sanction inequitable conduct. See Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 227 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he trial court's exercise of the inherent authority to assess attorneys' fees against an attorney must be based upon an express finding of bad faith conduct and must be supported by detailed factual findings describing the specific acts of bad faith conduct that resulted in the unnecessary incurrence of attorneys' fees. Thus, a finding of bad faith conduct must be predicated on a high degree of specificity in the factual findings.”); Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998) (“We note that this doctrine is rarely applicable. It is reserved for those extreme cases where a party acts ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’ ” (quoting Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F.2d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 1983))); Hallac v. Hallac, 88 So. 3d 253, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Such awards are rarely applicable and should be reserved for extreme cases in which a party litigates vexatiously and in bad faith.”). Therefore, we must affirm the order below, except to the extent that it sanctioned Appellant with Appellees' attorneys' fees. That part of the order is reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

PER CURIAM.

LUCAS, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.