Guyton v. Guyton
| Decision Date | 27 March 1985 |
| Citation | 469 So.2d 640 |
| Parties | Wardell GUYTON v. Clara L. GUYTON. Civ. 4553. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Wardell Guyton, pro se.
Alphonso Beckles, Huntsville, for appellee.
Mrs. Clara L. Guyton sought the sale of an allegedly jointly-owned house and lot, with the sale proceeds to be divided equally between the parties.
The sale was contested by the answer of Wardell Guyton (the defendant), who represented himself. On the date set for a hearing in the case, an agreement was reached, whereby, among other things, the property was to be appraised and the defendant was given the right to purchase the plaintiff's one-half undivided interest based upon the appraised value. No agreement was made concerning the fees of the plaintiff's attorney, but the trial court stated the following during the dictation of the agreement into the record in open court:
"The aspect of attorney's fee: if you [the plaintiff's attorney] can work something out with Mr. Guyton [the defendant] regarding that and can present the Court with a written supplement, that will be fine; if not, we'd have to take that up as another contested matter at the end of this case."
In the judgment, which approved and set forth the agreement of the parties, it was provided that all other matters not addressed in the judgment nor dealt with in the stipulation of the parties were reserved.
The defendant paid to the plaintiff the stipulated amount for the plaintiff's interest in the property, which was duly conveyed to the defendant by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a motion for an award of an attorney's fee, and evidence was presented ore tenus to the trial court upon that matter. The testimony of a practicing attorney with twenty years experience was, in short, that he had reviewed the court file and the file of the plaintiff's attorney and that a reasonable fee for the plaintiff's attorney for his many professional services in the case would be the usual and ordinary fee in such type litigation of ten percent of the appraised value, which fee would amount to $2,650.
The trial court rendered a judgment for the fee for $2,650. Since the issue as to the attorney's fee was the last undetermined matter in the case, a dismissal of the case was also entered. The defendant appealed and also represents himself in this court. We respond to the issues as raised by the defendant as we understand them.
In his brief, the defendant cites King v. Keith, 257 Ala. 463, 60 So.2d 47 (1952), in support of his contention that the attorney who was called as the plaintiff's witness was not a creditable person and that his testimony should be disallowed because of a lack of creditability. We have read and studied the entire record, as well as the cited case, and we are not impressed with such an argument. The question of whether or not a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is largely discretionary with the trial court, whose discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except for a palpable abuse. Rannells v. Graham, 439 So.2d 12, 20 (Ala.1983). The witness was properly qualified, and we find no abuse of discretion in allowing him to testify as to his opinion as to a reasonable fee.
The defendant's brother was made a party defendant. The defendant complains of certain actions and rulings which were taken or made against his brother, such as the rendition of a judgment by default against the brother....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benton v. King
...special advantage to correctly decide the issue [of attorney fees], and we have no right to disturb that decision." Guyton v. Guyton, 469 So.2d 640, 642 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). In Anderson v. Lee, 621 So.2d 1305, 1307 (Ala.1993), our supreme court applied the principles set out in Peebles v. Mi......
-
ANCO TV Cable Co., Inc. v. Vista Communications Ltd. Partnership I
...Ala.R.App.P. 28(a). See also Stover v. Alabama Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 467 So.2d 251 (Ala.1985); Guyton v. Guyton, 469 So.2d 640, 641 (Ala.Civ.App.1985)). The judgment is due to be AFFIRMED. MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, INGRAM and COOK, JJ., concur. ...
-
Markiewicz v. Neese
...of the mother. Those arguments are not properly before this court because the mother is not a party to this appeal. Guyton v. Guyton, 469 So.2d 640 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The only issue properly before us is whether the trial court erred in refusing to give custody to the grandmother. The gran......
-
Sellers v. Sellers
...be enlarged, changed, altered or varied by briefs of counsel for the record itself must disclose the facts relied upon. Guyton v. Guyton, 469 So.2d 640 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Taylor v. Taylor, 434 So.2d 280 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Roberts v. Roberts, 424 So.2d 644 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). In short, we ......