Archer v. Blakemore
| Decision Date | 17 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 11066,11066 |
| Citation | 367 S.W.2d 402 |
| Parties | Fancher ARCHER, Appellant, v. Nova Dean BLAKEMORE et vir, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John E. Allen, L. Hamilton Lowe, Austin, for appellant.
Kuykendall & Kuykendall, Austin, for appellees.
This is a suit involving the amount of attorney's fee appellant Fancher Archer, an attorney, is entitled to receive from his former client, Nova Dean Blakemore, for representing her in divorce proceedings against her former husband, Hurley Griffith.
On September 20, 1960, the parties entered into the following agreement:
'THE STATE OF TEXAS
'COUNTY OF TRAVIS
'September 20, 1960
'I, Nova Dean Griffith, having heretofore and do hereby employ Fancher Archer of Archer & Archer, Attorneys, 206 Littlefield Building, Austin, Texas, to represent me in preserving, keeping and managing my separate property and my community property of the community of Nova Dean Griffith and Hurley Griffith, my present husband, and having employed him to file suit and take such other action and steps by suit of otherwise to preserve and protect my property.
'AND for and in consideration of the services rendered and to be rendered to me by the said Fancher Archer, I agree and obligate myself to pay him one-fourth (1/4) of whatever property either personal, real, or money which shall be determined to be mine either through settlement or suit and I agree to pay costs of court.
'This I make as a power of attorney to Fancher Archer, to represent me and in my name to do all things necessary to manage, control and protect my interests and property.
'/s/ Nova Dean Griffith'
On the same day appellant filed an amended petition for divorce on behalf of appellee in which attorney's fees in the sum of $1000.00 was sought.
By an instrument dated October 17, 1960, Hurley Griffith submitted a list of property owned by him.
On November 21, 1960, the parties to the divorce suit entered into a property settlement in anticipation of a divorce by the terms of which appellee received some forty-three shares of stock in various insurance companies, household furniture and effects, one-half interest in all bank accounts and a one-half interest in the East 26' of Lot 2 and the West 20' of Lot 2 and all of Lot 1, Block ,157, original City of Austin, Travis County, such realty being subject to certain debts. Such agreement also provided that, 'Attorneys' fees in the sum of $500.00 shall be paid by Hurley Griffith to Archer and Archer, Attorneys; and all other attorney fees shall be paid by the respective parties to his or her attorney.'
On November 22, 1960, judgment of divorce was awarded appellee and the property settlement between her and her husband was explained by the Court, and because of which the Court found that there 'is no necessity for adjudicating any property rights of the parties.'
On the same day, and before leaving the Courthouse and while the relationship of attorney and client between the parties hereto was in effect, appellee executed and delivered to appellant a general warranty deed to an undivided 1/4 interest in and to the realty above described in consideration of the 'legal services rendered pursuant to contract of employment,' $10.00 and other good and valuable considerations. 1
It is this deed which appellee filed this suit to cancel. Her grounds for cancellation were that it was executed while the fiduciary relationship of client and attorney existed between her and appellant when it was executed; that she did not understand its nature and effect; that appellant had been paid a fee of $600.00 for his services in representing her in the divorce suit, which was a reasonable fee; that the value of the property conveyed by such deed was $7000.00, and that unless set aside it would result in appellant receiving an unreasonable and exorbitant fee for his services. She further alleged that if appellant is 'entitled to any additional fee, she stands ready to pay said additional fee.'
Appellant's answer consisted of a general denial and affirmative allegations to the effect that the deed sought to be cancelled was executed in consummations of the contract of employment as attorney for appellee the obligations of which appellant had fully performed.
Trial was to the Court without a jury. Judgment was rendered cancelling the deed in question, decreeing the sum of $1000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees for appellant for legal services rendered by him for appellee in the divorce suit filed against Hurley Griffith, and, $600.00 of such fee having been paid, rendering judgment for appellant against appellee for the sum of $400.00.
Appellant only has perfected an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archer v. Griffith
...to respondent. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were filed or requested. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Archer v. Blakemore, 367 S.W.2d 402. Respondent originally employed the law firm of Archer & Archer in January, 1959, to institute divorce proceedings in her behalf. She ma......