Urbieta v. Urbieta
| Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-618,83-618 |
| Citation | 446 So.2d 230 |
| Parties | Mayra URBIETA, Appellant, v. Guillermo URBIETA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stabinski & Funt and Cristina De Oliveira, Miami, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
This appeal is from orders awarding attorneys' fees of $1,000.00 to appellant's former attorneys and denying rehearing on the fee award in an action for dissolution of marriage.
The law firm of Stabinski & Funt, P.A. was employed by the wife to represent her in an action for dissolution of marriage instituted by the husband, and entered into an agreement which provided that the wife would pay its fees of $100.00 per hour, together with costs and other expenses. After her attorneys had spent many hours in advancing her cause, the wife discharged the Stabinski law firm and hired another attorney. The trial court permitted the substitution and gave the discharged lawyers a charging lien for all fees and costs. Subsequently, the husband and the wife entered into a settlement agreement whereby the husband obligated himself to pay the wife's attorneys' fees and other benefits. The substituted attorney filed a motion to tax costs and assess his fees.
Upon hearing, the Stabinski law firm presented expert testimony stating that $5,800.00 was a reasonable fee. However, the court ordered the husband to pay them only $1,000.00 and the substituted attorney, $3,000.00. The Stabinski law firm filed a motion for rehearing requesting the trial court to consider the employment agreement and the firm's charging lien. Rehearing was denied, but the firm was given leave to file a petition for determination of its fee owed by the wife pursuant to their agreement and the lien. The court denied the petition in view of its prior award of fees to the firm from the husband, and thereafter denied a motion for rehearing.
The wife's former attorneys urge reversal on the ground that the award of attorneys' fees of $1,000.00 on this record was so inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We agree and reverse.
Where an attorney has been discharged by a client the court is required to determine the reasonable value of the services rendered, limited by the maximum contract fee. See Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1982); see also Behar v. Root, 393 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Adams v. Fisher, 390 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
It is clear in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.D.I.C. v. Brodie
...performed prior to his discharge. See Trend Coin v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, 538 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So.2d 230 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). We are not persuaded by Brodie's argument that FDIC waived its "quantum meruit defense" by failing to assert it as requir......
-
Spano v. Bruce, 3D07–3327.
...lacks the requisite findings to justify the award. An inadequate award of attorney's fees is subject to reversal. See Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2009), provides f......
-
Spano v. Bruce
...lacks the requisite findings to justify the award. An inadequate award of attorney's fees is subject to reversal. See Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2009), provides......
-
Spano v. Bruce
...lacks therequisite findings to justify the award. An inadequate award of attorney's fees is subject to reversal. See Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2009), provides ......