Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 62-766
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-766,62-766 |
| Citation | 161 So.2d 673 |
| Parties | Joseph ROSENKRANTZ, Appellant, v. Carrie Lee HALL, Janet Brenner Nasher, Walter Franklin Eberhardt and Saul T. Von Zamft, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Theodore M. Trushin, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Saul T. Von Zamft, Miami, and Theodore Fisher, Coral Gables, for appellees Hall and Von Zamft.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for appellee Nasher.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellee Eberhardt.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant, an attorney for the plaintiff in a negligence action below, seeks to review an order awarding him and his co-counsel the sum of $194.40 as costs expended, but denying them recovery for services rendered.
The appellant was employed by the appellee Carrie Lee Hall to represent her in a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The appellant handled the case up to and including filing of the suit and notice of trial. Subsequently the appellant retained the firm of Frates and Fay as co-counsel to assist in trying the cause. Thereafter Carrie Lee Hall discharged the appellant 1 whereupon the appellant filed a 'motion to withdraw and petition for lien for attorneys' fees.' The trial court entered an order 2 granting the motion to withdraw and adjudicated that the appellant and his co-counsel had a charging lien on any judgment Carrie Lee Hall obtained in the negligence action or any settlement she might effect. Carrie Lee Hall thereupon settled her claim with one of the defendants for $2,000; her suit against the other defendant resulted in a verdict being directed against her at trial. After the trial, the appellant and co-counsel moved the court to determine the amount of their fee pursuant to the charging line. The trial court, apparently without hearing testimony in this regard, entered the order appealed which awarded costs only in the amount of $194.40.
The sole question presented by this appeal is stated thusly by the appellant: 'Whether or not the appellant, as original attorney for the plaintiff in this cause, is entitled to a fee, in addition to reimbursement of costs from the plaintiff?'
The appellant, in seeking to demonstrate reversible error, relies in large part upon certain well-established principles set forth in 3 Fla.Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 57, et seq. He also relies upon the case of Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538, wherein our Supreme Court held that an attorney who was employed for a specific purpose and for a definite fee, and who was discharged without cause after there had been substantial performance was entitled to recover the fee agreed upon. However, any attempt to apply this general principle of law to the circumstances here would require this court to assume facts not apparent in the record. The record fails to disclose the nature of the appellant's discharge, whether it was with or without cause, and therefore we would be unable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singleton v. Foreman
...v. Wolkowsky, 1938, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538, aff'd 147 Fla. 415, 2 So.2d 723, reaff'd 151 Fla. 62, 9 So.2d 553. Rosenkrantz v. Hall, Fla.Ct.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 673. Further, it is settled Florida law that when one party to a contract unjustifiably refuses to perform a substantial part of ......
-
Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith
...action. Sinclair, Louis, 428 So.2d at 1385; Dowda & Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 161 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Pasin v. Kroo, 412 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Fickle v. Adkins, 385 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). A summary proceeding ......
-
610 Lincoln Road, Inc. v. Kelner, P.A.
...(Osius v. Hastings, Fla.App.1957, 97 S.2d 623, vacated on other grounds in Hastings v. Osius, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 21; Rosenkrantz v. Hall, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 673), it has not specifically ruled on the time that such fee is recoverable. (Of course, in the instant case, the contingent ha......
-
Levin v. Rosenberg
...v. Hastings, 97 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957), vacated on other grounds Hastings v. Osius, 104 So.2d 21 (Fla.1958); Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 161 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The trial court then (notwithstanding the fact that after the attorneys were discharged the client settled the matter for......