EDWARD I. GOLDEN, Etc. v. DAVID HOWARD GOLDBERG, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 9, 2020
Docket3D19-2174
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 9, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-2174
Lower Tribunal No. 16-2253
________________
Edward I. Golden, etc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
David Howard Goldberg, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mindy S. Glazer,
Judge.
Jonathan H. Green & Associates, P.A., and William Jay Palmer and Tanya
Garcia Vega, for appellants.
David Howard Goldberg, P.L., and David Howard Goldberg, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Thomas Sharp, as the sole beneficiary of the Estate of Katherine
Jones, and Edward I. Golden, as the Curator of the Estate, appeal an order of the
probate court determining that attorney David Howard Goldberg, of David Howard
Goldberg, P.L., was entitled to a fee for defending the Guardian, Anthony Romano,
after the death of Jones against two petitions for surcharge for Romano’s alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. See
Schlesinger v. Jacob, 240 So. 3d 75, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also Sugarman v.
Galbut, 693 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). 2
Affirmed.
1
Prior to Jones’s death, the lower court had appointed Romano as her guardian.
2
Appellants also appeal the probate court’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine
Goldberg’s fees and costs incurred in litigating his fee petition. Because the trial
court has not set an amount of fees and costs, if any, we are without jurisdiction to
address that portion of the order on appeal. See Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins.
Co., 245 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to
address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees . . . because no amount
has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds
entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.” (quoting Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins.
Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017))).
2