G. W. EVORS, APPELLANT,
v.
T. M. BRYAN, APPELLEE
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.
In this chattel mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding of principal and interest due but reversed the allowance of attorney's fees as excessive, reducing the fee from $50.00 to $20.00 on an ordinary foreclosure involving only $53.37 in principal and interest.
The court held that expert opinion evidence regarding attorney's fees is not conclusive or binding on the court, and that the $50.00 fee awarded was excessive for an ordinary foreclosure involving only $53.37 in principal and interest, warranting reduction to $20.00.
“the opinion evidence of expert witnesses, as to the value of an attorney's services is not conclusive; nor is it binding either on the court or on the jury”
Establishes that expert testimony on attorney's fees, while admissible, does not control the court's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvors obtained a decree to foreclose a chattel mortgage given by Bryan to secure a $70.00 note. The Chancellor ordered Bryan to pay $53.37 as principa…
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 Foreclosure Of Chattel Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Upon a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage given to secure the payment of a note for $70.00 there was a decree in favor of the complainant. By the decree the defendant was ordered to “pay to the complainant within five days from this date the sum of Fifty-three and 37/100 Dollars as principal and interest, and also the costs of said suit, also the said sum Fifty Dollars as a reasonable attorney’s fee in said cause.” A Master was appointed to execute the decree.
The defendant appeals and assigns as error the finding by the Chancellor that the complainant was entitled to the amount stated and an attorney’s fee of $50.00.
There is some evidence in the record to support the finding of the principal sum with interest and we will not disturb the decree on this account; but as to the amount decreed to the complainant for his attorney’s fee there was error. The mortgage secured the payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee to the attorney of complainant for foreclosing the mortgage, and there is in the record the evidence of an attorney who testified as a witness in behalf of complainant that in ¡his opinion a reasonable fee to the attorney in the case foreclosing the mortgage would be $50.00 and 10 per centum of the amount involved. There was no other evidence on this point and the Chancellor may have considered this evidence conclusive. But such evidence is not controlling on the court.
It is well settled that the opinion evidence of expert witnesses,, as to the value of an attorney’s services is not conclusive; nor is it binding either on the court or on the jury. 4 Cyc. 1003; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45; Spencer v. Collins, 156 Cal. 298, 104 Pac. Rep. 320, 20 Ann. Cas. 49; Dinkelspiel & Hart v. Pons, 119 La. 236, 43 South. Rep. 1018; Lee v. Lomax, 219 Ill. 218, 76 N. E. Rep. 377; Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442, 73 N. W. Rep. 1023; Noftzger v. McMoffet, 63 Kan. 354, 65 Pac. Rep. 670; Cosgrove v. Leonard, 134 Mo. 419, 33 S. W. Rep. 777; Morehead’s Trustee v. Anderson, 125 Ky. 77, 100 S. W. Rep. 340.
In this case it does not appear that there was any complicated questions presented, or any unusual amount oí labor required to be performed. It was an ordinary foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. This being true, we can not sanction an allowance of an attorney’s fee equal to almost two-thirds of the amount claimed, and practically equal to the amount found by the court to be due to the complainant.
In the case of Purvis v. Frink, 57 Fla. 519, 49 South. Rep. 1023, this court said: “The courts should exercise care and caution in decreeing attorney’s fees to the end that only reasonable fees for services rendered be allowed.”
The attorney’s fee allowed in this case was excessive. The decree is, therefore, reversed with directions that it be modified allowing a fee of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) to the attorney of complainant.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The R. E. L. McCaskill Co. v. Dekle, 88 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1924)…that the opinion evidence of witnesses in such cases is not conclusive and that a large discretion rests in the court, who should take care that a reasonable charge only, under all the pertinent circumstances of the case, be allowed. Evors v. Bryan, 77 Fla. 399, 81 South. Rep. 513; Flournoy v. Smith, 84 Fla. 553, 94 South. Rep. 503. It is a matter of common knowledge, within judicial cognizance, that land values in the locality or section in which the property is involved in this litigation is located wer…
-
Penn-Florida Hotels Corp. v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 126 Fla. 344 (Fla. 1936)…at has heretofore been said, in addition to the following cases heretofore decided by this Court on that subject: Merrell v. Ridgely, 62 Fla. 546, 57 Sou. Rep. 352; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265, 85 Sou. Rep. 913; Evors v. Bryan, 77 Fla. 399, 81 Sou. Rep. 513; Flournoy v. Smith, 84 Fla. 553; 94 Sou. Rep. 503; Southern Bank & Trust Co. v. Mathers, 90 Fla. 542, 106 Sou. Rep. 402, Munroe v. Birdsey, 102 Fla. 544, 136 Sou. Rep. 886; Joudon v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 102 Fla. 782,…
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265 (Fla. 1920)…es rendered be allowed.”' Purvis v. Frink, 57 Fla. 519, 49 South. Rep. 3023. “The opinion evidence of expert witness as to the value of an attorney’s services is not conclusive nor is it binding either' on the court or on the jury.” Evors v. Bryan, 77 Fla. 399, 81 South. Rep. 513. This was a simple case, the declaration is in the statutory form, the testimony was short and the recovery small. An attorney’s fee of $150.00 for recovering $225.00 under such circumstances seems out of proportion. A fee of $7…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Head v. Hargrave, 105 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1881)
- Purvis v. Talulah H. Frink, 57 Fla. 519 (Fla. 1909)