Berrum v. Georgetta

Citation93 P.2d 525,60 Nev. 1
Decision Date05 September 1939
Docket Number3266.
PartiesBERRUM et al. v. GEORGETTA.
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

Appeal from Second District Court, Washoe County; B. F. Curler Judge.

Action by Clel Georgetta against Christine Berrum and husband. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order overruling defendants' motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

James T. Boyd, of Reno, for appellants.

Clyde D. Souter, of Reno, for respondent.

DUCKER Justice.

This is an action to recover an attorney fee alleged to have been earned by respondent as attorney for the appellant, Christine Berrum, in an action for divorce instituted by her. Her husband was joined in the instant action. The court found that the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by the attorney to said Christine Berrum was the sum of $1,500 and awarded judgment accordingly against her and her co-defendant. Both have appealed from the judgment and order overruling their motion for a new trial. They will sometimes be referred to as husband and wife.

The facts about which there is no dispute are as follows: Shortly before her action for divorce came on for trial the wife employed respondent as associate counsel to her attorney in that action. It was understood and agreed that he was to look to her individually for his compensation and was to receive no part of any counsel fees that might be awarded by the court in the action against her husband. From the time of his employment throughout the trial and for several days after judgment was entered, respondent acted as her associate counsel in the case. By that judgment a divorce was denied. Pursuant to the consent of the husband it was adjudged therein that the husband return to the wife the sum of $6,450 principal and interest of certain moneys, the separate property of the wife; that he pay her $2,000 to be used by her as she wished; that he pay to her the sum of $8,000 to be expended in the construction of a modern home, said sum to be deposited to her credit in the First National Bank in Reno, Nevada, or such other responsible bank as she might select on or before the first day of July, 1937; and that he pay to her the sum of $200 a month for the months of March April and May 1937, the sum of $150 a month for the twelve months commencing with the first day of June, 1937, the sum of $175 a month for the twelve months commencing with the first day of June, 1938, the sum of $200 a month for the twelve months commencing with the first day of June 1937, the sum of $200 a month for the twelve months commencing with the first day of June 1939, and a like sum monthly thereafter so long as she shall live, or until there shall be a division of the community property, all of said monthly sums being for support and maintenance. It was further adjudged that she have a life estate in an improved parcel of land in Reno, the same to become her separate property if she should elect to construct a new home on said parcel of land. She was awarded her costs.

At the final hearing in the foregoing action the court allowed her original counsel an attorney fee and at that time respondent stated in the presence of the husband and his attorney that he was to be paid by the wife personally and therefore it would not be proper for the court to make any allowance of attorney fee in the action to him, but that any allowance of attorney fee in the action should be made to compensate the original attorney, William M. Kearney, who should receive all of the attorney fee so decreed. On the 3rd day of May, 1937, there was personally served upon the husband a written notice of attorney's lien for his services to his client in the action. Previously, on the 23rd day of March, 1937, a similar service of said notice of lien was made upon the husband's attorney in the action. On or about August 13, 1937, the husband paid to the Clerk of the Court, who in turn paid to one James T. Boyd, who at that time represented the wife as her attorney, the sum of $8,450, being the total of $6,450 and $2,000 heretofore mentioned. The wife having refused to pay respondent the sum claimed by him for his services as her attorney in her action for divorce, the instant action was instituted.

It is alleged in the complaint that on or about the 18th day of April, 1936, he had been employed by said Christine Berrum as additional counsel to represent her in her action for divorce and for an equitable distribution of community and separate property; that on or about the 10th day of March, 1937, they agreed upon the amount to be paid by her to him as compensation for his services; and at that time agreed that the amount due him from her was $2,000. It was also alleged in his complaint "that from that time forward (time of employment), plaintiff (respondent here) spent many hours of time in consultation with said Christine Berrum, with said William M. Kearney, her other attorney, in the cause, with prospective witnesses, and in an examination of the law, culminating in the trial of the action, which began on the twenty-eighth day of April, 1936, and continued with the plaintiff's appearance in court on behalf of said Christine Berrum for a period of approximately twenty-four (24) days." Notice by the husband of respondent's lien for an attorney fee on the wife's cause of action and the subsequent payment through the former's attorney to the clerk of the court of the first two sums mentioned in the judgment amounting to $8,450 and the payment thereof to an attorney who was then acting for the wife, are also alleged in the complaint.

In her separate answer the wife admitted the employment alleged, and that respondent had rendered services on such employment, but denied that they had agreed upon the sum of $2,000 as the amount of compensation for his services. It was alleged that the same was excessive, and the sum of $1,000 was tendered in her answer, in full settlement of his claim and costs.

Appellants make the following assignments of error:

(1) The court erred in overruling their objection to the hypothetical question asked of the witness Cantwell.

(2) The court erred in making the finding as to the reasonable value of the professional services rendered by the respondent, said finding being outside the cause of action stated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Ewing v. Sargent
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 26 Febrero 1971
    ...v. Holland Realty Inv. Co., 80 Nev. 331, 393 P.2d 138 (1964), Whiteman v. Brandis, 78 Nev. 320, 372 P.2d 468 (1962), Berrum v. Georgetta, 60 Nev. 1, 93 P.2d 525, 98 P.2d 479 (1939), Maitia v. Allied Land & Live Stock Co., 49 Nev. 451, 248 P. 893 (1926), and Burgess v. Helm, 24 Nev. 242, 51 ......
  • Clark County v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 29 Octubre 1948
    ...... Wheeler. v. Hurley, 49 Nev. 70, 236 P. 559; Carroll v. Carroll, 51 Nev. 188, 272 P. 3; Berrum v. Georgetta, 60 Nev. 1, 93 P.2d 525, 98 P.2d 479; In. re Torres Estate, 61 Nev. 156, 120 P.2d 816, 135 A.L.R. 481; Edmonds v. Perry, 62 Nev. ......
  • Close v. Redelius
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 6 Marzo 1950
    ...Land & Live Stock Co., 49 Nev. 451, 465, 248 P. 893, 897; Paterson v. Condos, 55 Nev. 134, 142, 28 P.2d 499, 500; Berrum v. Georgetta, 60 Nev. 1, 5, 93 P.2d 525, 526, 98 P.2d 'Therefore, defendant's motion for a new trial should be, and the same hereby is, denied. 'Defendant's objection to ......
  • Morse v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in and for Clark County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 23 Junio 1948
    ...and the proceeds thereof. This is a special or charging lien and was the kind of lien with which Mr. Justice Ducker was dealing in Berrum v. Georgetta, supra. It is separate, distinct and remote from a retaining lien. The lien affected by the lower court's order in the present case is disti......
  • 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