Nichols v. Kroelinger
| Decision Date | 02 June 1950 |
| Parties | NICHOLS et al. v. KROELINGER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. C. Davant, Clearwater, for appellants.
Guss Wilder, Clearwater, and S. E. Simmons, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
In April 1931, A. J. Kroelinger secured a judgment against Edward Mills. The pertinent part of the judgment to this litigation is the sum of $912.33, awarded Kroelinger as a fee for his attorney, J. C. Davant. Kroelinger died in September 1942, May 1, 1947, on petition of Davant, Joseph W. Nichols was appointed curator of Kroelinger's estate and sixteen days later he (Nichols) was appointed administrator of said estate. June 12, 1949, on petition of Kroelinger's widow, the Probate Judge of Pinellas County revoked Nichols' appointment as administrator. The order of revocation was on appeal affirmed by the Circuit Court. We are confronted with an appeal from the latter decree.
Appellant urges several questions for our determination. They have to do with the power of the Probate Judge (1) to appoint and then vacate the appointment of Nichols as administrator of Kroelinger's estate. (2) is Section 734.20, F.S.A. a limitation on the recovery of debts due by a decedent in his lifetime? (3) Should the Probate Judge vacate the appointment of a curator on the same motion and at the same time he vacates the appointment of an administrator?
Other questions were propounded but are not detailed because we think the case turns on other considerations and being so, it is not necessary to answer them. The facts on which they are predicated are in the main not disputed and the abstract principles of law applicable to them are not controverted. Appellant is attempting to revive and collect a fee for securing a judgment that has lain dormant for more than 18 years and we can see no good reason to explore these questions when they do not go to the pith of the controversy.
The dominant question is whether or not an attorney who secures a judgment in which his fee for services is included, and who permits it to lie dormant for 18 years, during which his client dies, can then secure the appointment of an administrator of his client's estate to collect his fee against the consent of the client's widow, who is now the owner of the judgment and the sole heir of the estate.
When Nichols was appointed administrator of Kroelinger's estate, J. C. Davant filed his petition in the Circuit Court, reciting the recovery of the judgment against Kroelinger, that no fee had been paid him for his services, that he had a charging lien on the judgment to the extent of his fee, that said judgment was an asset of the estate and should be revived to render it collectible, and that petitioner was a creditor of the estate to the extent of his fee.
In Knabb et al. v. Mabry et al., 137 Fla. 530, 188 So. 586, this Court held that when an attorney renders professional services in a foreclosure proceedings, and is decreed certain fees which were secured by a lien on the mortgaged property, the attorneys are entitled to a decree imposing a lien upon the property on the theory that equitable considerations require a court to grant affirmative relief. A proceeding must of course be brought for that purpose, it must show that the fee is unpaid and that the property was bought in at the sale.
The rule seems to be general that an attorney's lien for services is equitable in nature and is protected in equity. Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721, 93 A.L.R. 661. It is not a right in the rem authorizing an action at law to recover. Such a lien conveys no interest in the rem that can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A.
...of services and a resulting favorable judgment or settlement bring the lien into existence at common law. Thus, in Nichols v. Kroelinger, 46 So.2d 722 (Fla.1950), an attorney secured a judgment for his client and allowed the judgment to lie dormant for eighteen years. The client died eleven......
-
Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith
...law. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Westinghouse Credit Corp. (In re Hanson Dredging, Inc.), 15 B.R. 79 (S.D.Fla.1981). See Nichols v. Kroelinger, 46 So.2d 722 (Fla.1950). No statutes outline the requirements for valid attorney's liens in Florida. Rather, case law acts as the sole guide for both ......
-
Bruton v. Carnival Corp.
...All proceedings in Florida to resolve an attorney's charging lien for legal services are equitable in nature. See Nichols v. Kroelinger, 46 So.2d 722 (Fla.1950). To impose a charging lien, a court in equity must find: (1) an express or implied contract between the attorney and client; (2) a......
-
Billingham v. Thiele
...understood this case is an exception to the majority rule. Following closely behind the Greenfield case is the case of Nichols v. Kroelinger, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 722, 724, where the court '* * * The rule is well settled that an attorney's charging lien does not extend beyond the fees and cha......
-
Taxation of contingent fees.
...263 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1959). (21) The charging lien in Florida is a product of the common law. See, e.g., Nichols v. Kroelinger, 46 So. 2d 722, 724 (Fla. 1950); Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., 517 So. 2d 88, 91 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (22) Foster v. U.S., 249 F......