Nodvin v. Krabe, 62500
Decision Date | 09 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 62500,62500 |
Citation | 287 S.E.2d 236,160 Ga.App. 310 |
Parties | NODVIN v. KRABE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William A. Morrison, Marvin P. Nodvin, Atlanta, for appellant.
Diane E. Reid, Noel Benedict, Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff Marvin P. Nodvin, an attorney, brought this action against Lou W. Krabe, a client, for an amount claimed due as the remainder of a fee for representing him in three lawsuits. Krabe had contacted Nodvin in August 1979 after being served as a defendant in an action on a lease by "Selig Enterprises, Inc. v. Lou W. Krabe d/b/a 'Highlander' Gift & Jewelry, d/b/a Strata-Gem." Nodvin testified that he advised Krabe he charged $125 per hour but thought he could keep the fee as low as $500. Nodvin called an attorney he knew who represented Selig Enterprises and found that Selig had not authorized the action. Nodvin then called the attorney who filed the action and was informed Selig had assigned the right of action to "K.J.F. Corporation" who they represented. K.J.F. voluntarily dismissed the Selig action and refiled a second action styled "K.J.F. Corporation v. Lou W. Krabe." Krabe was out of town at that time and when his wife was served with the complaint she forwarded it to Nodvin. Nodvin was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Krabe and filed an answer to the second action and a separate complaint in Krabe's name against the K.J.F. Corporation. Following negotiations between counsel it was agreed that both actions would be dismissed and K.J.F. would pay $200 to Krabe. Nodvin forwarded the $200 check to Krabe--with his bill for $1,320 as his fee. Krabe called Nodvin about the fee--arguing that it was too high. Nodvin testified he took off another $100 and Krabe said: "Fine." However, not thereafter receiving the amount claimed due, Nodvin brought this action as "an account stated."
Krabe denied that he agreed to the revised fee. He testified: "I didn't feel like I owed him any more money ... I told him I wasn't going to pay him any more money, but that I just sent him the $200 just to get rid of him, and thought that would be the end of it." He stated the only fee discussion was on the original action
Trial was before the judge without a jury and he found all legal services furnished by plaintiff constituted one legal matter and plaintiff had agreed to represent the defendant in that legal matter for a fee of $500. Plaintiff appeals from judgment for defendant. Held :
1. It was established that Krabe did not authorize Nodvin to file an action in his name against K.J.F. Corporation and that Nodvin billed Krabe $100 as the fee for filing that action--which he settled with K.J.F. for $200, and that Krabe turned over the entire $200 to Nodvin--which he kept. Thus, the issue is narrowed to the correctness of the trial court's finding as to whether the first two actions constituted "one legal matter."
2. The first action by Selig against Krabe was the result of a lease. Selig assigned that action to K.J.F. The same law firm that filed and dismissed the Selig action...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foshee v. Harris
...for partial summary judgment. Held: The construction of a contract is a matter of law for the court. OCGA § 13-2-1; Nodvin v. Krabe, 160 Ga.App. 310, 287 S.E.2d 236 (1981). Only when the terms of a contract are ambiguous does the interpretation become a question for the jury, Smiths' Proper......
-
Jones v. Barnes
...407 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 2440, 32 L.Ed.2d 691 (1972). The construction of a contract is a matter of law for the court, Nodvin v. Krabe, 160 Ga.App. 310, 287 S.E.2d 236 (1981), as is the determination vel non of ambiguity in a contract. Salvatori Corp. v. Rubin, 159 Ga.App. 369, 283 S.E.2d 326......
-
Quinlan v. Bell
...Ga. 692, 308 S.E.2d 825 (1983). The trial court's findings will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Nodvin v. Krabe, 160 Ga.App. 310, 287 S.E.2d 236 (1981). The rules that the court must apply in construing a contract are found in OCGA § 13-2-2. In construing a contract, the......
-
Jahncke Service, Inc. v. Department of Transp.
...be resolved by a jury. OCGA § 13-2-1; Smiths' Properties v. RTM Enterprises, 160 Ga.App. 102, 286 S.E.2d 334 (1981); Nodvin v. Krabe, 160 Ga.App. 310, 287 S.E.2d 236 (1981). In the instant case the court found as a matter of law that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract, appellants ......