Stephens v. Owens Law Grp. P.A. (In re Stephens)

Full title: In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Sallie B. STEPHENS, an incapacitated person (now…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Date published: Jan 20, 2016

198 So. 3d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 2D14–1321.

01-20-2016

In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Sallie B. STEPHENS, an incapacitated person (now deceased). David Earl Stephens as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. Stephens, and Andrew Bennett Spark, Appellants v. Owens Law Group. P.A. ; Allen Dell, P.A. ; Jabessa Majors Smith, as Successor Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens; and Joe Ellen Rowe, as Former Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens, Appellees.

Andrew Bennett Spark of Spark Law Chartered, Tampa, pro se, and for Appellant David Earl Stephens as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. Stephens. James S. Eggert of Owens Law Group, P.A., Ruskin, for Appellees Owens Law Group, P.A. and Allen Dell, P.A. Carl R. Hayes, Tampa, for Appellee Jabessa Majors Smith, as Successor Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens. No appearance for Appellee Joe Ellen Rowe, as Former Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Andrew Bennett Spark of Spark Law Chartered, Tampa, pro se, and for Appellant David Earl Stephens as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. Stephens.

James S. Eggert of Owens Law Group, P.A., Ruskin, for Appellees Owens Law Group, P.A. and Allen Dell, P.A.

Carl R. Hayes, Tampa, for Appellee Jabessa Majors Smith, as Successor Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens.

No appearance for Appellee Joe Ellen Rowe, as Former Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

We affirm the issues raised by the Appellants without comment. However, Owens Law Group, P.A., and Allen Dell, P.A., concede that the trial court miscalculated the interest on the order directing the Guardian to pay them from the restricted depository. The Guardian requested that $20,000 be paid to these creditor Appellees. It is unclear from the appellate record how the trial court calculated the interest, but it appears that it used the wrong time period, used an incorrect interest rate, or made a computational error in arriving at a total award of $23,693.53. Accordingly, we reverse the order's award of interest and remand to the trial court with directions to recalculate its interest award. See §§ 55.03, 687.01, Fla. Stat. (2013).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.