Lamoureux v. Lamoureux
| Decision Date | 18 December 1951 |
| Citation | 59 So.2d 9 |
| Parties | LAMOUREUX v. LAMOUREUX et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Pace, Sigman & Gilbert, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Ward & Ward, Miami, for respondents.
It appears by the record in this cause that Amedee J. Lamoureux and Claire D. Lamoureux married in the State of Massachusetts and moved to Miami, Florida, in March, 1929, and engaged in the laundry and dry cleaning business, where both parties worked in the business and it became very remunerative. They organized La Mont, Inc., a corporation, and jointly conveyed to it a considerable portion of their real and personal property accumulated during their cohabitation and work in the laundry and dry cleaning business. Unhappy differences arose between them which resulted in bitter and acrimonious litigation over their accumulated property and domestic difficulties, which terminated in a divorce and alimony. We have, during the past few years in this Court, ruled on different phases of the litigation brought here. The rights of the parties were finally adjudicated and placed at rest by an order of this Court in Lamoureux v. Lamoureux, 157 Fla. 300, 25 So.2d 859.
After the entry of the divorce decree partition suits were filed, which were consolidated by an order dated October 31, 1947. Thereafter, on January 30, 1951, Amedee J. Lamoureux and Claire D. Lamoureux signed a stipulation which apparently terminated several years of litigation. (Tr. 12-15). Claire D. Lamoureux was plaintiff in the partition suits and her attorneys were awarded a fee in the sum of $12,500. On appeal here the allowance was affirmed. Her counsel were paid in the divorce litigation the further sum of $5,764.30. See Lamoureux v. Lamoureux Fla., 46 So.2d 403. On or about November 8, 1950, Mrs. Lamoureux discharged counsel who had represented her for some four or five years in the litigation and thereafter employed attorney James G. Pace.
On July 5, 1951, Mrs. Lamoureux's former attorneys filed in the original cause of Lamoureux v. Lamoureux then pending in the lower Court their petition for an additional allowance of counsel fees and expense money. The petition is viz.:
fees for legal services rendered the plaintiff Claire D. Lamoureux in connection with the matters other than the partition aspects of this litigation as follows:
'40% of all sums, whether cash or allowance of credit on:
'(a) All sums for support money and alimony from the defendant Amedee J. Lamoureux.
'(b) All sums representing Claire D. Lamoureux's adjudicated share of rents and profits from the laundry property.
'(c) All sums representing Claire D. Lamoureux's adjudicated participation in the security deposit paid to the defendants LaMont, Inc. or Amedee J. Lamoureux under the lease on the laundry property.
'20% of all amounts paid by or charged against the interest of Amedee J. Lamoureux on the mortgage indebtedness on the home property subsequent to April 28, 1947.
'All costs or expenses incurred by petitioners in behalf of Claire D. Lamoureux in connection with this litigation.
'Petitioners have already been paid by the said Claire D. Lamoureux the sum of $5764.31 on account of attorneys' fees paid under the terms and provisions of this contract for their services in other than the partition aspects of this litigation, and $646.90 for costs paid or incurred by petitioners up to June 3, 1950.
'Petitioners are entitled to a lien against Claire D. Lamoureux's share of the monies and property involved in this litigation for such amount as is found to be remaining due them under their contract with the said Claire D. Lamoureux.
'Wherefore, petitioners pray that this Court ascertain and determine the amounts remaining due them under their contract with the said Claire D. Lamoureux for attorneys' fees due petitioners for legal services rendered the said Claire D. Lamoureux in matters other than the partition aspects of that litigation and that they be granted a lien in the amounts so found to be remaining due them against Claire D. Lamoureux's share of the monies and property involved in this litigation.'
Counsel for defendant-petitioner filed a motion, on various grounds, to strike the petition requesting an allowance of additional counsel fees, and one of the grounds being to the effect that no contract existed between Mrs. Lamoureux and her counsel which required her to pay additional counsel fees. The motion to strike was overruled and denied by the Chancellor in the order dated July 13, 1951. The Chancellor in the same order granted an allowance of $4,000 as additional counsel fees and the sum of $540 as legal expenses. The order so entered is challenged here on petition for an interlocutory writ of certiorari.
Pertinent here are the following excerpts from the challenged order:
representation of Claire D. Lamoureux they performed a large number of legal services for her which directly resulted in her recovery of both money and valuable property. The parties to this litigation and the subject matter of the recovery are still before this Court. There was received in evidence at the hearing a copy of a letter from petitioners to Claire D. Lamoureux delineating a schedule of contingent legal fees based upon percentage of recovery by petitioners for Claire D. Lamoureux. There was testimony offered that Claire D. Lamoureux withdrew from the registry of this Court a sum of money which petitioners had recovered for her and from this amount paid petitioners on account of legal services as hereinafter noted in accordance with this schedule of contingent fees as authorized in said letter. However, this letter does not appear to have been signed by Claire D. Lamoureux and this Court does not find sufficient evidence to establish petitioners' compensation for legal services on the basis of this letter, but this Court does find that Claire D. Lamoureux employed petitioners to perform legal services for her in addition to legal services involved in the partition aspects of this litigation, and while no express agreement may have been reached as to the amount of legal fees to be paid for the services rendered, the law implies a contract on the part of Claire D. Lamoureux employi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commerce Partnership 8098 Ltd. Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc.
...In these circumstances, the law implies the promise to pay a reasonable amount for the services. Lewis, 12 So. at 21; Lamoureux v. Lamoureux, 59 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla.1951); A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dean v. Blank, 267 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Solutec Corp. v. ......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...In these circumstances, the law implies the promise to pay a reasonable amount for the services. Lewis, 12 So. at 21;Lamoureux v. Lamoureux, 59 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla.1951); A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dean v. Blank, 267 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Solutec Corp. v. Y......
-
Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 95-3865
...an agreement to pay a reasonable fee when a party engages an attorney to represent oneself in a matter. See, e.g., Lamoureux v. Lamoureux, 59 So.2d 9 (Fla.1952); Freedman v. Horton, Schwartz & Perse, 383 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).4 The idea that some ambiguous contracts will not be resol......
-
River Road Const. Co. v. Ring Power Corp.
...parties) in the same manner as other elements of damage. See Baruch v. Giblin, 122 Fla. 59, 164 So. 831, 833 (1935); Lamoureux v. Lamoureux, 59 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1951). Pertinent to our consideration of both the attorney's fees and prejudgment interest questions is our holding in a recent o......