LORNA D. ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD KARL GOETHEL AND BENJAMIN SARDINAS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Attorney and accountant obtained summary judgment against former client for unpaid professional fees based on written contract and quantum meruit, affirmed because undisputed evidence showed services were rendered, accepted, and fees were reasonable.
Summary judgment was properly entered for the attorney and accountant because undisputed evidence established that services were competently rendered, accepted by the client, periodically paid without protest, and the outstanding fees were reasonable as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate in a professional services fee dispute when undisputed evidence establishes that services were competently rendered, accepted by the clien…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney and accountant rendered professional services to a client over an extended period pursuant to a written contract. The client paid periodic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Professional Services cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an action by an attorney [Richard Karl Goethel] and an accountant [Benjamin Sardinas] against a former client [Lorna D. Robertson] for monies due and owing for professional services rendered based on a written contract, quantum meruit and an account stated. The trial court entered final summary judgments for the attorney and accountant on the amount due and owing plus interest. The client appeals.
Our review of the record reveals that the final summary judgments were properly entered. All agree, and the undisputed evidence in the record shows, that the client herein engaged and thereafter accepted professional legal and accounting services from the plaintiffs herein which were competently rendered over an extended period of time, that the client paid periodically without protest on various bills sent by the attorney and accountant for such professional services, and that the outstanding fees presently due and owing to the attorney and accountant are admittedly reasonable and not excessive. In view of this showing, it is clear that there were only paper issues left to be decided in the cause, that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Reflex, N. V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So. 2d 473, 474-75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 237 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Kochan v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 200 So. 2d 213, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(a), (c).
Affirmed.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merrill-Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. "Corniche Express" & owner Myron Wisotsky, 400 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…co Medical Supply, 433 N.Y.S.2d 52, 78 A.D.2d 914 (1980); Everett v. Webb Furniture Co., Inc., 98 Fla. 780, 124 So. 278 (1929). Cf. Dudas v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (account stated proved by implication); Robertson v. Goethel, 369 So. 2d 365 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (client engaged and accepted services); Breezy Bay, Inc. v. Industria Maquiladora Mexicana, S.A., 361 So. 2d 440 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) (impliedly admitted to correctness of invoices); Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Wackenhut Corp., 323…
-
Betancourt v. Commercial Bank & Tr. Co., 391 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…So. 2d 290 (Fla.1970); Smith v. Continental Insurance Company, 326 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Inman v. The Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Alario v. Miller, 354 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Robertson v. Goethel, 369 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Applegate v. The Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1980); Section 95.11(3)(a) Florida Statutes (1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Reflex, N.V. v. The Umet Tr., 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Kochan v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 200 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Inst., Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)