Marriage of Nichols, In re, 75--597
| Decision Date | 01 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--597,75--597 |
| Citation | 38 Colo.App. 82,553 P.2d 77 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Maxine E. NICHOLS, Appellee, and Samuel Oliver Nichols. Appeal of Paul BARBER. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Daniel M. Taubman, Larry J. Rodriguez, Colorado Springs, for appellee.
Paul Barber, pro se.
This appeal presents the question of whether a trial court, in a marriage dissolution action, is granted the power by the statute to consider on its own motion the issue of the reasonableness of fees charged a client by his attorney. It also presents the issue of whether the court may enter an order setting forth the compensation to which the attorney is entitled, once the reasonableness of attorney fees is made an issue, without hearing any additional testimony concerning the value of services actually performed. We answer both questions in the negative; we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant Paul Barber, attorney for Maxine Nichols, moved on her behalf that the trial court order respondent Samuel Nichols to pay the attorney fees charged by Barber. In support of this motion Barber introduced into evidence a statement of the services he had rendered to his client, the amount of time these services had required, and his billing rates. He advised the court that he intended to charge $920 for his services plus an additional $51.65 court costs. The reasonableness of Barber's charges was never questioned by Maxine Nichols, and no evidence was ever introduced to establish that Barber was entitled to any amount different from that which he claimed.
The trial court at the conclusion of evidence on the motion advised the parties and Mr. Barber that, in its opinion, the bill was excessive and that the court would decide how much Mrs. Nichols should pay. Mr. Barber then moved for leave to withdraw immediately. Before ruling on the motion to withdraw the court entered its final decree of dissolution in which it was ordered, Inter alia, that each party pay his own attorney fees and costs. The court found the reasonable value of Barber's services to be $400. Mr. Barber moved for reconsideration, or for a new trial. His motion was denied, and this appeal followed.
The function of a trial court is to hear and to resolve suits and controversies raised by the parties who have invoked its authority. Greenwood Cemetery Land Co. v. Routt, 17 Colo. 156, 28 P. 1125, 15 L.R.A. 369, 31 Am.Rep. 284. It is, however, the responsibility of the parties to define the nature and extent of the court's inquiry. Where, as here, they assert no grievance, there exists no suit or controversy on which the court may act.
More specifically, the extent of the court's authority in the dissolution case was delineated by § 14--10--119, C.R.S.1973, which grants the court the power to order one party to pay to the other a reasonable amount for costs and attorney fees incurred in maintaining or defending the action. See Stovall v. Crosby, 171 Colo. 70, 464 P.2d 868. In this case, however, the court determined that each party should pay his own fees and costs. The statute is designed to allow the court to apportion costs and fees equitably between the parties, and it cannot be construed as a general grant of authority to determine the amount of fees to which an attorney is entitled. Where, as here, the specific authority of the court derives from the statute, the court may only exercise the powers granted. Iwerks v. People, 130 Colo. 86, 273 P.2d 133; Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021. The court here fully exercised its power to apportion when it ordered each party to pay his own costs and fees.
The validity of an attorney's contract with his client, including the terms of compensation for services to be rendered may, if the parties to that contract so choose, be litigated in the same manner as any other cause of action. Cf. Tower v. Tower, 147 Colo. 480, 364...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Wheat Ridge v. Cerveny
...any other contract. The court's power, absent a challenge by one of the contracting parties, lies dormant. In re Marriage of Nichols, 38 Colo.App. 82, 84, 553 P.2d 77, 79 (1976); see also Hayden v. Bowen, 404 F.2d 682, 686 (5th Cir.1968) (holding in the context of a fee award that "[t]he co......
-
In re Marriage of Shapard
...to the dissolution court to determine the amount of fees to which an attorney may be otherwise entitled. In re Marriage of Nichols, 38 Colo.App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976). Rather, the court's authority under the statute is solely to determine, as between the spouses, the reasonable attorney fe......
-
Cerveny v. City of Wheat Ridge
...improperly considered it. We agree. Only the parties to an attorney-client contract may challenge its validity. In re Marriage of Nichols, 38 Colo.App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976). Accordingly, the trial court erred insofar as the denial of attorney fees rested on failure to comply with statutor......
-
Marriage of Seely, In re, 82CA0579
...here that the effect of the trial court's order was to modify her fee agreement with her attorney. Relying on In re Marriage of Nichols, 38 Colo.App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976), the wife argues that under § 14-10-119, C.R.S. (1983 Cum.Supp.), a trial court is authorized to apportion attorney's ......
-
ARTICLE 10
...(Colo. App. 1985). This section is designed to allow the court to apportion costs and fees equitably between the parties. In re Nichols, 38 Colo. App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976); In re Hauger, 679 P.2d 604 (Colo. App. 1984). This section empowers the trial court to equitably apportion costs and......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...cannot be abridged by legislative enactment. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. v. Francis, 134 Colo. 160, 301 P.2d 139 (1956); In re Nichols, 38 Colo. App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976). No constitutional right to gain maximum profit from use of property. There is simply no constitutionally protected rig......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...(Colo. App. 1985). This section is designed to allow the court to apportion costs and fees equitably between the parties. In re Nichols, 38 Colo. App. 82, 553 P.2d 77 (1976); In re Hauger, 679 P.2d 604 (Colo. App. 1984). This section empowers the trial court to equitably apportion costs and......
-
Attorney's Fees
...Lindner, 410 P.2d 186 (1966). 2. C.R.S. 1973, § 14-10-119. 3. In re Marriage of Hartford, 612 P.2d 1163 (1980); In re Marriage of Nichols, 553 P.2d 77 (1976); In re Marriage of Robinson, 601 P.2d 358 (1979); In re Marriage of Westback, 514 P.2d 780 (1973) (not selected for official publicat......