Longmire v. Hall, 47657
Decision Date | 10 June 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 47657,No. 1,47657,1 |
Citation | 541 P.2d 276 |
Parties | Carl W. LONGMIRE, Appellant, v. Leta Fern HALL, Appellee |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Carl W. Longmire, pro se.
Harris, Gladd & Dyer, Tulsa, for appellee.
This appeal is brought by Carl W. Longmire, attorney at law, who was attorney for the defendant and cross-petitioner, Leta Fern Hall, in a divorce action filed by J. B. Hall on November 19, 1969.
On April 19, 1972, after extended proceedings, Mrs. Hall was granted a divorce from J. B. Hall on the ground of incompatibility. Mrs. Hall was awarded alimony in the amount of $52,500.00, a parcel of improved realty valued at $18,000.00, and 40 acres of land in Wagoner County valued at $20,000.00 for a total award of $90,250.00.
J. B. Hall was ordered to pay Mrs. Hall's attorney, Longmire, an attorney fee of $15,000.00, which was paid. There was no appeal from the divorce judgment.
The employment agreement between Mrs. Hall and Longmire was in the form of a letter dated December 4, 1969, addressed to Longmire, and signed by Leta Hall, which reads as follows:
On June 29, 1972, Longmire presented Mrs. Hall with a second fee agreement which provided that Longmire would waive all rights granted to him under the letter agreement if Mrs. Hall would convey to him an undivided 1/4th interest in and to her 40 acres of land in Wagoner County. Mrs. Hall refused.
On March 22, 1973, Longmire filed in the land records of Wagoner County, an instrument entitled 'Affidavit and Caveat' in which he alleged that he is the owner of an undivided one-fourth interest in and to the 40 acres of land of Mrs. Hall as a direct result of the letter of December 4, 1969.
On March 29, 1974, Mrs. Hall filed a Motion to Strike wherein she moved the court to set aside the purported contingent fee agreement. Longmire filed an Answer and Cross-Petition wherein he asked for judgment against Mrs. Hall in the amount of $25,800.00 and that his attorney's lien be continued in Wagoner County.
At the hearing in this subsequent proceeding, Longmire testified that he had devoted between 1,250 to 1,500 hours as an attorney representing Mrs. Hall in the divorce action and that his fee should be not less than $40.00 per hour. Longmire also testified that since the divorce he had represented Mrs. Hall in three contempt proceedings against her former husband, for which he should be paid the sum of $1,300.00.
The District Court entered an Order dated June 20, 1974, which reads in part:
Longmire has appealed and presents two propositions. The first is:
'That the trial court erred in finding that the agreement of December 4, 1969, was void.'
Longmire relies heavily upon the case of Krieger v. Bulpitt, 40 Cal.2d 97, 251 P.2d 673 (1953), to uphold his contingent fee agreement. He asserts that the attorneys in Krieger represented the defendant just as he represented the defendant in the instant case. However we note one material difference. In the instant case, the defendant was a cross-petitioner, and the divorce was granted to defendant on her cross-petition.
In Opperud v. Bussey, 172 Okl. 625, 46 P.2d 319 (1935), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in the syllabus as follows:
'An attorneys' lien contract providing for a contingent fee, dependent on the amount recovered in a divorce case, is against public policy and void and unenforceable.'
In the opinion the court said:
'As to the second assignment of error, that the court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. New Life Pentecostal Church of Jenks
...172 Okl. 625, 46 P.2d 319, 322-324 (1935); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Fagin, Okl., 848 P.2d 11, 16 (1992); Longmire v. Hall, Okl.App., 541 P.2d 276, 278-279 (1975) (a contract for services affecting marital relations, such as a contingent-fee agreement for divorce litigation which ......
-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Fagin
...(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). The Oklahoma Court of Appeals has spoken on this question to some degree in several cases. In Longmire v. Hall, 541 P.2d 276 (Okla.Ct.App.1975), an action brought by an attorney against his former client in a divorce action, the court determined that a contingent fee......
-
Clark v. Sage
...of Highways, 295 Minn. 514, 202 N.W.2d 873 (1972); Murphy v. Mooresville Mills, 132 N.J.Super. 197, 333 A.2d 273 (1975); Longmire v. Hall, 541 P.2d 276 (Okl.App.1975). Obviously, there is no precise way to quantify many of these factors, particularly since the Industrial Commission will be ......
-
McCrary v. McCrary, 62814
...gives the attorney a personal interest in the litigation thus serving as an impediment to reconciliation. See also: Longmire v. Hall. Okl.App., 541 P.2d 276 (1975); 1 People v. Nutt, Colo. 696 P.2d 242 (1984). Such a fee arrangement in a divorce case is "unquestionably illegal and void and ......
-
Gambling With Ethics and Constitutional Rights: a Look at Issues Involved With Contingent Fee Arrangements in Criminal Defense Practice
...731 (N.M. 1920) (stating "[cjontracts for contingent fees by attorneys at law were not tolerated at all at common law"); Longmire v. Hall, 541 P.2d 276, 278 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975) (stating, in an action to recover attorney fees from a divorce action, that "contracts for contingent fees paid ......