Scott v. Kirtley

Decision Date06 December 1933
Citation113 Fla. 637,152 So. 721
PartiesSCOTT v. KIRTLEY.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1934.

Suit by Fred H. Kirtley against Mary Evans Scott. From orders overruling defendant's motions to strike paragraph of the amended bill and to dismiss the bill as a whole for want of equity, defendant appeals.

Affirmed and cause remanded.

ELLIS J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; W. M. Trammell, judge.

COUNSEL

Peters & Kemp, of Miami, for appellant.

James M. Carson, Douglas D. Felix, Henry K. Gibson, and Roscoe Brunstetter, all of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

DAVIS Chief Justice.

In this case complainant below, Fred H. Kirtley, alleged that as a duly licensed and qualified practitioner of law in the state of Florida he was retained by defendant below, Mary Evans Scott, for the purpose of representing her in a professional capacity in securing for her a child's part in an estate in which Mrs. Scott was interested; that, when she retained Mr. Kirtley, Mrs. Scott was completely out of funds and unable to pay her attorney a retainer or other fee at the time she engaged him, and that it was accordingly arranged between the parties that the attorney so employed would be paid his fee for his services out of and from any and all property obtained by defendant from the services of the attorney rendered in securing said child's part, and that, acting upon such basis, complainant undertook and accepted employment as defendant's attorney, and that through the aid, services, and skill of the complainant as an attorney certain described real estate had been obtained and acquired by Mrs. Scott, all of which had been produced in her hands by the skill, services, and labors of complainant as attorney for the defendant; that the real estate so realized was of the value of $10,000, and that, notwithstanding the services rendered by complainant, the defendant had failed neglected, and refused to pay her attorney any sum whatsoever, but, on the contrary, was endeavoring to defeat the payment of any fee to him by incumbering, or attempting to incumber, the property; wherefore complainant sued defendant in an action in equity and claimed a lien on the property he had realized for her to the extent of the reasonable value of his services rendered and performed as defendant's attorney.

Motion was made to strike paragraph 5 of the amended bill. This motion, together with a general motion to dismiss the bill as a whole for want of equity, was overruled, and defendant has appealed from the interlocutory order.

The bill of complaint, as we construe its allegations, is not a bill brought to enforce a lien that is claimed to have arisen on the land as a result of the services rendered by the attorney to the owner in recovering it for her. On the contrary, the bill appears to be predicated upon an asserted equitable right to have an equitable lien for the reasonable value of the attorney's services impressed upon the land recovered as a direct result of those services, and thereafter to have such equitable lien enforced against the property involved.

We are not unmindful of the point strenuously urged before us, both in the briefs and during the oral argument, that at common law an attorney had no lien upon an estate recovered for a client, but only on papers in his hands. [1]

But in this case, we are not asked to either recognize or enforce any common-law lien. On the contrary, the claim is for an equitable lien.

Such an equitable lien, complainant asserts, should be decreed in this case in his favor for the amount of his attorney's fees, because of the equities that he asserts have arisen out of his relationship with the defendant, his client, and the relationship of his professional services with the defendant client's property that has been made the rem of the instant suit.

As has been well stated in 17 Ruling Case Law, par. 14, p. 605, in discussing equitable liens:

'Even in the absence of an express contract a lien, based upon the fundamental maxims of equity, may be implied and declared by a court of chancery out of general considerations of right and justice as applied to the relations of the parties and the circumstances of their dealings.'

In this case it is shown by the allegations of the amended bill of complaint (admitted by the motion to dismiss as being true) that Kirtley, the attorney, was retained by Mas. Scott to render to her certain valuable professional services in and about securing for her own individual benefit a specified interest in certain property, the full enjoyment of which, to the extent she now has it, she could not have realized but for the legal aid, skill, and services of her attorney employed and exercised in her behalf. The character and extent of the services rendered is fully described and set forth. It is averred that the services charged for were such only as the real necessities of the case required.

It is further stated that such services embraced lengthy and technical statements of accounts, income tax returns, and estate tax returns; that the client being a woman, and possessed of little or no business experience, made the preparation of the case for trial 'tedious and wearisome' to plaintiff in undertaking to act as her attorney.

Above all, it is pointed out that, as an attorney in the matter, plaintiff, Kirtley, was successful in his legal undertaking on his client's behalf, and that, as a result of the legal services rendered by him, both in the court of original instance and in an appellate court, his client, Mrs. Scott, has come into possession and realization of certain valuable real estate which she now holds, but is attempting to dispose of without paying anything at all for her attorney's justly due compensation for his services.

We are of the opinion that where, as the result of services rendered by an attorney at law in suing for and recovering for his client certain real estate, the client has realized the real estate as fruits of the attorney's professional services, under an express or implied understanding on the part of both attorney and client that a reasonable attorney's fee would be charged, and would of necessity be payable out of the property realized by the client as a result of the successful efforts of the attorney in litigating for it, even in the absence of any express contract for a definite amount of fee, an equitable lien, based upon the fundamental maxim of equity that no one shall be unjustly enriched at another's expense, may be implied and declared by a court of chancery out of general considerations of right and justice which must be applied to the relations of the attorney and client with reference to the fruits of the transaction, and the circumstance of their dealings with each other, with the understanding that the services of the attorney would be payable out of what the client should realize as a result of the successful efforts of the attorney. 17 R. C. L. p. 605, par. 14; Graeber v. McMullin (C. C. A.) 56 F. (2d) 497, certiorari denied by United States Supreme Court in 287 U.S. 603, 53 S.Ct. 9, 77 L.Ed. 525.

In Fillmore v. Wells, 10 Colo. 228, 15 P. 343, 345, 3 Am. St. Rep. 567, the Supreme Court of that state set forth a discussion on the subject of the practice of law, which we deem worthy of quotation here, although that case has been criticised by counsel for the appellant as being inapplicable to Florida, because of the weight attributed in the opinion to a Colorado statute:

'The custom of advocates to render their services quiddam honorarium does not exist in this country. We doubt very much if counsel for appellant, who discourse with such evident admiration upon this practice as it existed centuries ago in Rome, in France, and in England, would be willing to see it established in Colorado. The advocate or counselor who should here to-day imitate Cierco, and give his services gratuitously, relying solely upon the gift which, in the language of Sir John Davy, 'guieth honor as well to the taker as the guier,' would soon find the wolf at his door, unless, like Cicero, he had other sources of revenue. It may, from counsel's standpoint, be a humiliating fact, but it is a fact, nevertheless, that in this respect the legal profession occupies the status with us of other employment followed for a livelihood. The attorney is considered worthy of his hire, and is not in danger of disbarment if he contract in advance for his fees, and collect them by suit, when necessary, after the service is rendered. * * *

'A second question fairly presented by the record and arguments before us is, can a suit in equity be maintained by the attorney for the enforcement of his lien, when the employment is questioned, and the amount of his compensation is unliquidated? Counsel contend that since a court of equity is not the proper forum to entertain inquiries into questions of contract, nor the proper tribunal to hear evidence, and determine the reasonable value of services rendered, these matters ought to have been adjudicated in a court of law. They say that plaintiffs should have brought their action in a legal forum, and there had, all controversy concerining the contract, as well as the amount of compensation, first determined. * * * Unless a court of equity would, before the Code, have been properly clothed with jurisdiction over the cause of action stated in the complaint before us, the action cannot be maintained in equity under the Code. * * *

'The attorney's lien, whether under the statute or at common law, is equitable in its nature. Even the decisions in this country, which confine its existence and application to the narrowest limits, always speak of it as an equitable lien,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., 86-2822
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 22, 1987
    ...the right of an attorney to recover fees by imposing a lien on a judgment obtained by his efforts for his client. See Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721 (1933); Note, Attorney and Client: Attorney's Charging Lien, 4 U.Fla.L.Rev. 58 (1951) [hereinafter Note]. Although Florida, unlik......
  • Chapman v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • September 18, 1961
    ...at from applying the principles of natural right and justice to facts actually experienced in cases before them.' (Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721, 722 fn. 93 A.L.R. "`The common law does not consist of absolute, fixed, and inflexible rules, but rather of broad and comprehensive......
  • Colligan v. Cousar, Gen. No. 48582
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 9, 1963
    ...Monsen, 228 Minn. 400, 37 N.W.2d 543; Barnes Coal Corp. v. Retail Coal Merchants Ass'n, 128 F.2d 645, 648 (4th Cir.). In Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721, 93 A.L.R. 661, it is stated that the common law is but the crystallized conclusion of judges arrived at by applying the princ......
  • Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 20, 1986
    ...of inconsistency, Billingham v. Thiele, 109 So.2d 763 (Fla.1959); Knabb v. Mabry, 137 Fla. 530, 188 So. 586 (1939); Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721 (1933); Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 So. 242 The majority opinion makes brief reference to the fact that the lawyer asserts a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT