KENNETH V. PITKIN AND MADELINE MURPHY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCIS T. RYAN, ET AL., 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.
Kenneth Pitkin and Madeline Murphy appealed a directed verdict granted in favor of defendants Ryan and others in a dispute over attorneys' fees. The court reversed, finding no evidence that the parties had agreed upon a specific fee amount, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine a reasonable fee based on established factors.
The appellate court found no support in the record for the claim that the parties had agreed upon the fee amount. Absent such agreement, the appellees were entitled to a reasonable fee, to be determined by the trial court at an evidentiary hearing using established reasonableness factors.
[1] A directed verdict is improper if the record does not support the contention that the amount of attorneys' fees was agreed upon by the parties.
[2] When the amount of attorneys' fees has not been agreed upon, the parties are entitled to a reasonable fee.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We are unable to find support in the record for appellees' contention and the trial court's holding that the amount of attorneys' fees, which was the issue being litigated, had been agreed upon by the parties.”
Establishes the core holding that no evidence supported the trial court's premise that parties had agreed on a specific fee amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs/appellants Pitkin and Murphy were in a dispute with defendants/appellees Ryan and others regarding the amount of attorneys' fees owed. At t…
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.
HERSEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment resulting from the granting of defendant/appellee’s motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff/appellants’ presentation of evidence.
We are unable to find support in the record for appellees’ contention and the trial court’s holding that the amount of attorneys’ fees, which was the issue being litigated, had been agreed upon by the parties. That being so, appellees were entitled to a reasonable fee. It has not been determined and we do not consider whether the specific amount involved here would' constitute a reasonable fee.
We reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees that would be reasonable for the particular services rendered, taking into consideration the following factors:
1. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
2. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. 3. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
4. The amount involved and the results obtained.
5. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
6. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
7. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.
8. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent. [Not applicable here since a criminal case is involved].
DR 2 — 106(B), Code of Professional Responsibility.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, J., concurs.
BERANEK, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Triefler v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 588 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…e in collecting on the note. See also Citizens Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n of St. Lucie County v. Loeb Rhoades, Hornblower & Co., 473 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Palmer v. Shelby Plaza Motel, Inc., 443 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pitkin v. Ryan, 409 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Triefler's second issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding him liable for the balance due on the note when he did not sign a personal guaranty. This court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unle…
-
City OF Boca Raton v. Faith Baptist Church OF Boca Raton, Inc., 423 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ion of attorney’s fees may be appropriate in the court’s discretion. We have considered the appellees’ cross-appeal and found it to be without merit. REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions. LETTS, C.J., and DELL, J., concur. . See Pitkin v. Ryan, 409 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also Disciplinary Rule 2-106(B), Code of Professional Responsibility.…