Robertson v. Robertson, 240
| Decision Date | 07 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 240,240 |
| Citation | 106 So.2d 590 |
| Parties | Pauline G. ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Harold J. ROBERTSON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rogers, Morris & Griffis, E. B. Griffis, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
John W. Douglass, Ft. Lauderdale J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for appellee, Joe E. Hodges.
The appellant, who was plaintiff below in a separate maintenance suit against her husband, appellee, retained an attorney, one Joe E. Hodges, to represent her in such action. Suit was filed in January, 1956, seeking support money, a temporary restraining order and attorney fees. Necessary preparations for trial were carried on while negotiations of a settlement were continued, this lasting over a six month period. Due to appellee Robertson's nature and propensity for the excess use of alcohol, these negotiations were hectic, punctuated with frequent threats of violence toward all concerned. Reconciliation was effected, finally, which permitted a preservation of the family relation but which also afforded to the plaintiff all that she sought in the original suit-that is, security, and that by a transfer to her sole care, custody and control all the considerable assets of the family.
Originally the attorney was to look to Mr. Robertson for payment of his bill for services but when the assets were transferred the attorney looked to the appellant. his client. As of June 20, 1956, the attorney had received from the wife $2,500 to apply on the final bill. The wife contended, apparently, that the attorney should still collect his fee from her husband.
Thereupon, the attorney, Joe E. Hodges, petitioned the lower court for the award of a fee against his client, the wife, plaintiff below. Subsequent to this the wife, in keeping with her reconciliation with her husband, moved to dismiss the separate maintenance suit, which was dismissed by order which retained jurisdiction for determination of attorney's fees.
Upon hearing had the chancellor entered an order in which various findings were made, the material ones to this appeal being that the fee agreement between the attorney and his client anticipated the payment by Mr. Robertson, the husband; that through the attorney's efforts and representation all the family assets were made available to the wife free of any claim by her husband; that the attorney was entitled to a reasonable fee, determined to be in the sum of $9,000, plus certain costs and expenses and less the $2,500, previously paid; and that the attorney should have a lien against all of the property for such fee if not paid within 30 days. A final decree in accordance with the above was entered and provided for public sale by a Special Master to satisfy the mentioned lien. During the course of the taking of testimony the attorney testified that he had devoted a total of 431 hours in behalf of his client with a recitation of the accomplishments of his representation. The court heard three attorneys who testified in behalf of the attorney, Mr. Hodges, as expert witnesses and they testified as to a reasonable fee in the sums of $15,892, $16,373, and $21,975.
The wife, plaintiff below, appealed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nettles v. State
...DCA 1979). The court has discretion to accept or reject the opinion of an expert even though it is uncontroverted. Robertson v. Robertson, 106 So.2d 590 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958). Behm v. Division of Administration State Dept. of Transportation, 292 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), approved 336 So.......
-
Hardwick v. State
...Corp., Inc., 506 So.2d 30, 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); White v. Acker, 155 So.2d 176, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Robertson v. Robertson, 106 So.2d 590, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); Kinney v. Mosher, 100 So.2d 644, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA However, this record contains nothing beyond a mere implication that Ha......
-
Behm v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp.
...Hawkins v. Schofman, 204 So.2d 336 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1967); LeFevre v. Bear, 113 So.2d 390 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1959); Robertson v. Robertson, 106 So.2d 590 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1958). By analogy, there are a host of cases which plainly state that the opinion of an expert witness testifying as to attorneys ......
-
South Venice Corp. v. Caspersen
...3rd Ed., § 673, p. 795; Millar v. Tropical Gables Corp., supra; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Braz, supra; Robertson v. Robertson, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 590. With regard to the nonexpert opinion of Mr. Blackman, we have been unable to find any Florida case directly in point. In Kers......