PENELOPE JEAN JONES vs IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF WILLIAM EDWARD JONES, ADULT WARD AND TAMMY JONES HAYNES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PENELOPE JEAN JONES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D19-1564 IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF WILLIAM EDWARD JONES, ADULT WARD AND TAMMY JONES HAYNES, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 14, 2020 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge. Beth Kathryn Roland, of Family First Firm, Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Penelope Jones appeals a guardianship order denying her request for guardian compensation. The sole basis for the trial court’s denial of the request was that Jones had “an obligation to provide such services for the ward without compensation due to the father/daughter familial relationship between the Ward and the guardian.” We reverse. A guardian is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered to the ward. § 744.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). The criteria to be considered by the court in determining an award of fees to a guardian are set forth in section 744.108(2). Where, as in the instant case, there is a close familial relationship between the guardian and the ward, the guardian is not entitled to compensation for “merely doing what any family member would do for their relative under the circumstances.” In re Guardianship of Sapp, 868 So. 2d 687, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). However, a guardian in a close familial relationship with the ward is entitled to compensation for reasonable and necessary services performed “within the scope of his or her duties as a guardian.” Id. On remand, the trial court should determine the services that would reasonably be performed by a professional or other non-family member guardian necessary to discharge a guardian’s duty to the ward. The guardian would be entitled to compensation to the extent those services were actually performed and properly documented. Id. at 698. The guardian would not be entitled to compensation for services “that would not generally be undertaken by a professional or other non-family member guardian, i.e., ‘for merely doing what any daughter does.’” Id. REVERSED and REMANDED. EVANDER, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
