Bell v. Forster

Decision Date19 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. A93A2483,A93A2483
Citation211 Ga.App. 76,438 S.E.2d 145
PartiesBELL et al. v. FORSTER.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Grant, Konvalinka, & Grubbs, John R. Anderson, Carole Y. Lynch, Chattanooga, TN, for appellants.

Scott J. Forster, Calhoun, pro se.

BLACKBURN, Judge.

The appellee, Scott J. Forster, was one of two attorneys who represented Arthur Bell in an action filed in the Superior Court of Gordon County by Quality Mat, Inc. and Robert Arafe, individually and as sole stockholder of Quality Mat, Inc., against Bell. A counterclaim was apparently filed in this matter although there is no record of same before us.

Appellant Yetta Bell, the mother of Arthur Bell, subsequently intervened in the action. After a jury trial judgment was entered in favor of the Bells against Quality Mat, Inc. and Robert Arafe in the amount of $225,000 on September 15, 1992. The total judgment plus 12 percent interest was ultimately received by appellants.

Appellants dispute the fees of appellee Forster and those of attorney Benton, although the dispute with Benton is not involved in this appeal.

While there was no written fee agreement between appellants and Forster at the time he was retained, Forster's undisputed testimony shows that he was to be paid $75 per hour for his services in this case, plus expenses. Forster testified that he had received $3,800 in fee payments from appellants as of September 21, 1992. At that time he forwarded a bill to appellants for attorney fees of $18,450 (246 hours @ $75 per hour) plus expenses of $1,137.50, less $3,800, for an account balance of $15,787.50.

Appellants disputed Forster's September 21, 1992 bill. The parties then entered into a written fee settlement agreement whereby Forster would receive 15 percent of sums collected by him toward the judgment, which agreement is quoted during the hearing, but is not a part of the record before us.

Forster thereafter collected the sum of $18,701.07 from a single account of the judgment debtor and received the sum of $2,805.16 therefrom as attorney fees. Additionally, it is undisputed that in February 1993, Forster intercepted and turned over to the sheriff, checks payable to the judgment debtor from its customers totaling $83,143.

In order to satisfy the judgment and to obtain release of the checks intercepted by Forster, the judgment debtor paid the sum of $208,575.79 into the registry of the court and paid the additional sums of $5,621.72 in interest and $18,728.47 on the principal judgment amount directly to appellants on February 26, 1993. The trial court withheld $15,000 of the sums paid into court until a hearing could be had on the attorney fees liens filed pursuant to OCGA § 15-19-14.

On May 6, 1993, appellants' new counsel requested a continuance of the hearing on the attorney fees dispute, which the court granted until May 20, 1993, with an admonition that the matter would be heard at that time. On May 20, 1993, yet another attorney appeared on behalf of appellants who did not appear, testify or introduce evidence at the hearing.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the transcript reflects that the trial court awarded Forster the sum of 15 percent of $83,143 ($12,471.45), noting that said award was less than that to which appellee would have been entitled under a quantum meruit theory.

1. The Bells initially argue that the trial court erred in granting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lynch v. Horton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 7 d2 Setembro d2 2010
    ...above. Absent a contemporaneous objection, this enumeration of error presents nothing for appellate review. See Bell v. Forster, 211 Ga.App. 76, 438 S.E.2d 145 (1993) (where party failed to challenge trial court's grant of attorney fees based on quantum meruit, the issue was waived on appea......
  • Martin, In re
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 10 d1 Julho d1 1995
    ...There was no objection raised below to this alleged error and nothing is presented for our review. See generally Bell v. Forster, 211 Ga.App. 76, 77(1), 438 S.E.2d 145 (1993). Even assuming that the alleged error is properly before us, there is no argument that the court responded in any ma......
  • In re Otuonye, No. A06A0075.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 18 d4 Maio d4 2006
    ...value of its services which produced such enrichment, such enrichment is unjust). 17. (Emphasis supplied.) 18. Bell v. Forster, 211 Ga.App. 76, 77(2), 438 S.E.2d 145 (1993); see also Court of Appeals Rule 25(a)(1) (requiring appellant's brief to provide record citations for material facts e......
  • G.I.R. Systems, Inc. v. Lance
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 2 d2 Setembro d2 1997
    ...trial court. Enumerated errors raised for the first time on appeal present nothing for us to review. See generally Bell v. Forster, 211 Ga.App. 76, 77, 438 S.E.2d 145 (1993). 2. Second, G.I.R. contends the trial court had no authority to order an inspection of the equipment at the plant. We......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT