Stevens v. Sparks
| Citation | 135 S.E.2d 140,205 Va. 128 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5700,5700 |
| Parties | DORA FOX STEVENS v. VIVIAN B. SPARKS, EXECUTRIX, ETC., ET AL. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Evans B. Jessee (Arthur E. Smith, on brief), for the appellant.
Charles D. Fox, Jr. (Hunter, Fox & Fox, on brief), for appellee, Vivian B. Sparks, Executrix, &c.
James E. Buchholtz (William J. Lemon, on brief), for appellees, William L. Martin; William B. Hopkins and William J. Lemon, partners, &c.
Vivian B. Sparks, Executrix of the estate of Edward Bascom Stevens, filed a bill in chancery against Dora Fox Stevens, widow of the decedent, and the partnership of Martin, Martin and Hopkins, attorneys at law, hereinafter called law firm, who rendered professional services to Mrs. Stevens in connection with the estate. The bill sought the aid and guidance of the court with regard to the distribution of decedent's estate and it alleged, inter alia, that the law firm had served on the executrix notice of attorney's lien for $2,466.51 on funds due Mrs. Stevens from the estate, and that Mrs. Stevens claimed that certain joint bank accounts in the names of decedent and Vivian B. Sparks were assets of the estate. The bill specifically prayed, among other things, that it be determined by the court whether the law firm 'has a lien for service and if so, the amount thereof', and whether the joint bank accounts should be considered as a part of decedent's estate.
Mrs. Stevens and the law firm filed separate answers to the bill. Mrs. Stevens moved the court to make Vivian B. Sparks, in her individual capacity, a party defendant to the cause, on the ground that her interests were in conflict with those of the estate. Miss Sparks was made such a party on the day the trial began.
The testimony was heard ore tenus and it has been certified to us in narrative form. The evidence consisted of the testimony of Leonard G. Muse, Vivian B. Sparks, William B. Hopkins, William L. Martin, and also certain exhibits. Mrs. Stevens did not testify. The evidence is not in dispute and it may be summarized as follows:
Edward Bascom Stevens was killed in an automobile accident on November 21, 1958. He and Dora Fox Stevens, his wife, had lived separate and apart for more than thirty years. On two occasions he had sought a divorce, but his wife successfully opposed both attempts. About 1930 Stevens became acquainted with Miss Sparks who was a nurse for a local physician. Shortly thereafter she came to live in his home for the express purpose of caring for Stevens' elderly brothers and sisters who were in poor health. She assisted in their care until the death of the surviving one in 1951. Miss Sparks was advised by Leonard G. Muse, an attorney and old friend of Stevens, 'that it would be proper in every respect' for her to continue to reside in the residence with Stevens, which she did until his death.
On October 31, 1941, Stevens executed his last will and testament. He devised and bequeathed all of his property to Miss Sparks and named her as executrix of his estate. On August 16, 1948, he executed a codicil to his will in which he devised all of his interest in 402 Riverland Road, in Roanoke, his residence, to Miss Sparks in fee simple. Later in 1948, the residence was conveyed to her in fee simple by deed.
In 1948 and 1950 Stevens opened three joint bank accounts at the Bank of Salem and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Roanoke in his name and that of Miss Sparks death the total amount on deposit in the three accounts was $28,381.03. Miss Sparks remembered signing only one signature card furnished by the banks. However, her signature on the joint bank account cards is not disputed.
In December 1958, Mrs. Stevens, who resided in Nebraska, employed the law firm of Martin, Martin and Hopkins 'to obtain for her whatever monies and benefits might be due to her from the Estate of E. Bascom Stevens, her husband' on a contingent fee basis of one-third. The law firm assisted Mrs. Stevens in securing Social Security benefits without charge; it successfully prosecuted her contested claim for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for which the law firm was awarded by the Industrial Commission the sum of $900 for services rendered, and it secured for her benefits of $2,500 on an insurance policy issued by Travelers Protective Association. It received one-third of the latter recovery for services rendered.
Thereafter, the law firm concentrated its efforts towards the estate. Mrs. Stevens renounced her husband's will and elected to claim such share of the estate as she would be entitled to had her husband died intestate. The net estate at that time, excluding the joint bank accounts in dispute, amounted to approximately $4,981.38.
Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that the record shows that much time was consumed and an exhaustive study of the law pertaining to the issues involved was made by members of the law firm. At their instance a number of lengthy conferences were had with Miss Sparks' attorney which culminated in an offer of compromise by Miss Sparks. She agreed to pay Mrs. Stevens (1) $988.17 as full commuted value of the disputed dower interest in the residence which had been conveyed to her in 1948; (2) $1,662.13, being one-third of the net estate, and (3) $4,730.17, being one-sixth of the amounts in the joint bank accounts. These sums total $7,380.47, and the law firm based its claim for compensation on this amount.
The law firm strongly recommended to Mrs. Stevens that she accept the offer which was, in its opinion, more than she would receive by court action. Mrs. Stevens declined to accept the offer since the issue had become a matter of principle with her. She said 'that the only way that this matter could be determined would be through a jury trial so that the public could be informed of the type of woman that this Sparks woman was.' 'To her the monitary (sic) factor was secondary.' She told William B. Hopkins, a member of the law firm, 'that he would be paid his fee * * * regardless of the outcome of the case'. Hopkins informed her that he was of opinion that the issue was one for the chancellor to decide and not one for a jury. He further told Mrs. Stevens that it would be a violation of the canons of professional ethics for him to prosecute the case when the sole purpose was to harass Miss Sparks 'without regards to the result in the case.' Mrs. Stevens decided to employ other counsel and at that time, according to William L. Martin, another member of the law firm, she 'stated unequivocally that the fee would be paid'.
The file papers were delivered to her by the law firm and she contacted Harvey Lutins, a Roanoke attorney. He likewise advised Mrs. Stevens to accept the settlement offer, but she refused to follow his advice. She then employed Arthur E. Smith and Evans B. Jesse who represented her at the trial in the court below.
During the course of the trial Leonard G. Muse testified that he had been a friend of Stevens since 'sometime in the 1920's'; that he had on several occasions discussed with him the disposition of his estate; that on one occasion Stevens told him he had substantial sums of money on savings and he wanted Miss Sparks to have these accounts; that several years before his death Stevens told him 'of his desire that his entire estate should go to Miss Sparks because of her service to himself and his family.' Muse further testified that Stevens informed him on another occasion that his will had been drawn leaving everything to Miss Sparks; 'that he also had savings and checking accounts which he had placed jointly in his and Miss Sparks' name; that the money placed in the accounts was earned by him and that he had made the accounts jointly so as to be certain that she was joint owner with him of the accounts and that he did not want his wife to get one cent of anything he possessed, but on the contrary Miss Sparks was to have it all.'
Muse also stated that he had known Miss Sparks for a number of years and she was a person of 'good reputation in every respect'. He was certain that her relationship with Stevens 'was one of complete propriety.'
In his letter opinion, the chancellor held, among other things, that the firm of Martin, Martin and Hopkins, attorneys, had a common law lien in the sum of $2,466.51 on the funds due Mrs. Stevens from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Reno v. C.I.R.
...not defeat the survivor's right to the property and any devise of the entireties property will be of no effect. Stevens v. Sparks, 205 Va. 128, 135, 135 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1964). We have absolutely no quarrel with those principles of Virginia property law. We decline, however, to take the nex......
-
Estate of Reno v. C.I.R.
...otherwise would pass outside of the will by operation of law. Robinson v. Lee, 205 Va. 363, 136 S.E.2d 860 (1964); Stevens v. Sparks, 205 Va. 128, 135 S.E.2d 140 (1964); Johnson v. McCarty, 202 Va. 49, 115 S.E.2d 915 (1960); Awtry v. Commissioner, 221 F.2d 749 (8th Cir.1955). 7 Those cases ......
-
American Standard Homes Corp. v. Reinecke
...jurisdiction to enter a money judgment enforcing the attorney's fees commitments as legal claims ex contractu. Stevens v. Sparks, 205 Va. 128, 133, 135 S.E.2d 140, 144 (1964); accord Carr v. Tharp, 221 Va. 1012, 1016, 277 S.E.2d 167, 169 (1981). Alternatively, American Standard could have p......
-
Breton, LLC v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
...the attorney possesses the property or money subject to the alleged lien, which is plainly not the case here. See Stevens v. Sparks, 205 Va. 128, 135 S.E.2d 140, 144 (1964) (“An attorney may have a common law possessory lien which is his right to retain the property or money belonging to hi......