MANICIA CHATMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
RODNEY F. LONDON AND SUNDANCE CARRIAGE CORP., INC., D/B/A DOLLAR RENTR-A-CAR, 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.
An attorney discharged without cause is entitled to the reasonable value of services on a quantum meruit basis, not exceeding the contract amount.
Appellant hired attorneys, dismissed them after settlement offer, and settled the case. The attorneys moved for fees for work performed. The trial cou…
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 Attorney Discharge Without Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Manicia Chatman, appeals a trial court’s order which awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Mulholland & Associates, her former attorneys. We affirm.
Chatman employed Mulholland & Associates to represent her in a personal injury action. After the pretrial conference and after an offer of settlement had been filed, Chatman dismissed Mulholland. Chatman then settled the case. Mulholland filed a motion for fees for work it had performed. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge entered an order finding that Mulhol-land was dismissed without cause and awarded fees and costs.
An attorney discharged without cause is entitled to the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit in an amount not to exceed the amount due under the contract with the client. Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1982). In this case the trial court entered an order which substantially complied with the requirements of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified on other grounds, Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990).
In this appeal, Chatman failed to include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. She also failed to file a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Because the order on its face does not reveal any abuse of discretion, we affirm the award of fees. See Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynn v. Allstar Steakhouse & Sports BAR, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…mpossible of performance or would not cause her counsel to violate an ethical rule, but without this necessary evidentiary record, we cannot say so. The order on its face does not reveal either error or an abuse of discretion. See Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Affirmed. BLUE, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J„ Concur.…
-
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Zapata, 761 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ure. Lynn is analogous to this case and mandates an affirmance. Furthermore, the challenged order on its face reveals neither error nor abuse of discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Finally, we point out for the parties’ consideration that the release and satisfaction entered on August 17, 1999, does not refer to the amended final judgment of August 2, 1999, but to the earlier final judgment dated July 21,…
-
Michael L. Berger, J.D., LL.M., P.A. v. Brooks, 657 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…s limited to the maximum fee set in the contract entered into for those services.” Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla.1982); accord Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A v. Poletz, 652 So. 2d 366 (Fla.1995); Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A., 538 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). If on remand Berger contends that he has a sound basis for requesting quantum meruit recovery in excess of the amount he has already been…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)
- Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)