Justice Administration Commission v. Jupena
226 So. 3d 381
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2017Background
- James R. Jupena was court‑appointed to represent a father (J.K.) in dependency proceedings for multiple children; the father was found indigent.
- Jupena billed and received the statutory flat fees: $800 initial + $200 annual for the multi‑child matters, and JAC paid those amounts.
- A fifth child (C.C.) was later determined to be the father’s child; the trial court appointed Jupena for C.C.’s dependency proceedings and held disposition.
- Jupena submitted a second initial flat fee request of $800 for C.C.; JAC denied payment, citing the statute that caps compensation per parent (not per child) and Jupena’s contract.
- Jupena moved for the fee (and initially sought extraordinary compensation); the trial court ordered JAC to pay the additional $800.
- JAC petitioned for certiorari; the Fifth DCA granted relief, holding the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law because the flat fee was barred by statute and required statutory findings for any excess award were absent.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (JAC) Argument | Respondent (Jupena) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may recover a second initial flat fee for a newly added child during the same parent representation | Statute limits flat fees "per parent" irrespective of number of children; additional initial fee barred | Jupena argued he was entitled to a second initial flat fee for representation in C.C.’s disposition | Held for JAC: statute precludes an additional initial flat fee for the same parent absent extraordinary‑effort findings |
| Whether the trial court could award fees exceeding statutory caps without required findings and documentation | JAC: trial court failed to apply §27.5304(12) procedures and make required findings; no adequate billing/support in record | Jupena implicitly relied on trial court’s discretion; initially sought extraordinary compensation then refiled without expressly seeking it | Held for JAC: trial court’s order lacked the required findings on extraordinary/unusual effort and reasonable hours, so award was legally insufficient |
| Whether certiorari relief is appropriate to review the fee order | JAC: order departs from essential requirements of law and causes material injury not correctable on appeal | Implicitly argued trial court acted within discretion and award was appropriate | Held: certiorari granted because the order violated clear statutory rules and lacked required findings |
| Whether absence of hearing transcript is fatal to JAC’s claim | JAC: error appears on face of order, so transcript not necessary | N/A | Held: transcript not fatal where error is apparent on face of order (citing precedent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. S. Prestressed Concrete, Inc., 928 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (departure from essential requirements of law standard)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983) (definition of departure from essential requirements)
- Justice Admin. Comm’n v. Lenamon, 19 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (trial court must find counsel proved extraordinary and unusual efforts)
- Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) (trial court authority to exceed statutory fee limits in extraordinary cases)
- Ally v. Justice Admin. Comm’n, 124 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (trial court must include findings on time/impact and reasonable hours when awarding excess fees)
- Watts v. Justice Admin. Comm’n, 135 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (purpose of extraordinary‑fee provision to ensure effective representation)
- Zelman v. Justice Admin. Comm’n, 78 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (requirement to state reasonable hours to assess whether award is confiscatory)
- Sheppard & White, P.A. v. City of Jacksonville, 827 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2002) (certiorari proper vehicle to review fee orders)
- Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (transcript not required when error appears on face of order)