VALDES v. ESTATE OF CAPETILLO (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Irama VALDES, Appellant, v. IN RE: ESTATE OF Andres Jesus CAPETILLO, Appellee.

No. 3D26-0030

Decided: September 17, 2026

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

Irama Valdes, P.A., and Irama Valdes, Miami, for appellant. No appearance, for appellee.

Affirmed. See § 733.6171(5), Fla. Stat. (2025); In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 335–36 (Fla. 1991) (“The key word in the present statute is that the fee should be ‘reasonable.’ ”); Estate of Brock, 695 So. 2d 714, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[A] probate court should consider the nature of the services rendered and the necessity for their performance, together with the reasonableness of the charges.”); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”); Harris v. Estate of Harris, 307 So. 3d 821, 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Our standard of review for an award of attorney's fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network