WILLIAM C. GUTHRIE
v.
HOME BUILDING AND LOAN CO.
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 sued to enforce a lien against his former client for legal services rendered in foreclosure proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint but modified the decree to preserve the attorney's right to refile with properly framed allegations seeking equitable relief based on a trust relationship rather than a direct lien on property.
The court held that while an attorney may have an equitable interest in proceeds from resold properties (through a theory of specific performance based on the trust nature of the relationship), he does not have a present lien against the properties themselves. The dismissal was proper because the bill was unsustainable on its alleged theory, but the decree should be modified to permit refiling with proper equitable allegations.
“If as attempted to be alleged in the amended bill of complaint the complainant has an equitable interest to be sub-served by the payment over to him of certain moneys that are due to be paid to him from time to time by defendant when and as certain lands and properties foreclosed upon (to which it is alleged defendant has acquired the title by reason of the legal services furnished by complainant in that behalf) are resold by the defendant and the purchase price thereof realized by it, complainant may have an equity against defendant in the nature of a right to specific performance of the defendant's agreement to pay over to him, as the rightful recipient thereof, those moneys”
Establishes that an attorney may have an equitable claim to proceeds from resale, not to the properties themselves, based on a trust relationship.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuthrie, an attorney, was employed by Home Building and Loan Company to foreclose mortgages and render other legal services. Guthrie filed an amended …
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 Equitable Cognizance cases and more on FLexlaw
An amended bill filed by Guthrie alleged that complainant, an attorney at law, was employed by appellee, Home Building and Loan Company, to foreclose certain mortgages and render certain other legal services, for which, complainant should be declared to have a lien, which lien should be enforced against the appellee’s properties. The Chancellor dismissed the bill as being without equity. Complainant has appealed.
Since this cause was decided in the court below this Court has concluded some of the propositions involved herein, by its decision rendered in the case of Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 Sou. Rep. 721. See also: Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 Sou. Rep. 242, and Smith v. Tydings, 100 Fla. 1414, 131 Sou. Rep. 319.
If as attempted to be alleged in the amended bill of complaint the complainant has an equitable interest to be sub-served by the payment over to him of certain moneys that are due to be paid to him from time to time by defendant when and as certain lands and properties foreclosed upon (to which it is alleged defendant has acquired the title by reason of the legal services furnished by complainant in that behalf) are resold by the defendant and the purchase price thereof realized by it, complainant may have an equity against defendant in the nature of a right to specific performance of the defendant’s agreement to pay over to him, as the rightful recipient thereof, those moneys which when and after receipt, would constitute complainant’s attorney’s fees, and concerning which defendant would be charged with a liability to account because of the trust nature of *824the underlying transactions and relationship between the parties heretofore transpiring with reference thereto.
But neither the original, bill nor the amended bill seems to; have been framed on any such theory, but rather on the theory that complainant has a present lien against the properties themselves, not on the proceeds of the sale thereof for the amount of his attorney’s fees included therein.
" The orders sustaining defendant’s motions to dismiss the original bill and the amended bill will not be held erroneous because it was within the province of the Chancellor to; finally dismiss bills which'were wholly unsustainable on the special and particular theory'upon which they purported to be founded. This is so, even though the allegations of such bills disclose the possibility of their being so amended and restated as to make a controversy of equitable cognizance of an entirely- different character,- should wholly different relief be prayed for. ■ However,- the- rights of the complainant to recast his bill with proper allegations and to seek in a court of equity all proper relief" incident thereto, should have been saved in the court below by so qualifying the finial decree of dismissal herein entered, as not to- bar or preclude. a new suit on an appropriate equitable basis. ;
The decree of dismissal is here modified to accord with ■ the holding of this opinion and as so modified, is affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J., agrees to the conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ira E. Billingham v. Ellsworth W. Thiele, 109 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1959)…tute or express or implied agreement providing one, even though he successfully prosecutes a suit to establish the client’s title or recover possession. To support its position the Court of Appeal relied on Guthrie v. Home Building and Loan Company, 116 Fla. 822, 156 So. 882; Greenfield Villages, Inc. v. Thompson, Fla.1952, 44 So. 2d 679; Stern v. Stern, Fla.1951, 50 So. 2d 119. In addition the Court of Appeal announced its adherence to what it concluded to be the rule of the majority of the courts as refle…
-
Ira E. Billingham v. Ellsworth W. Thiele, 107 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…agreement, an attorney has no lien on the land of his client, although he has successfully prosecuted a suit to establish the clients’ title, or recovered title or possession for the client, and cites the case of Guthrie v. Home Building & Loan Co., 116 Fla. 822, 156 So. 882, as authority for the majority rule. Then, in 5 Am.Jur., Attorney at Law, Section 238, the same rule is set out, but a Florida case is cited for the minority, Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721, 93 A.L.R. 661. In the Guthrie c…
-
Mason v. Antonacci, 342 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ult of the September 19,1968 letter, Mason has a claim to the extent of the amount of his legal services on one-half the sale proceeds to which the Collins’ ownership interest in the property may be entitled. See Guthrie v. Home Building & Loan Co., 116 Fla. 822, 156 So. 882 (1934). At this stage of the litigation it is not known whether there will be any proceeds due the Collins’ interest and, therefore, it is premature to eliminate Mason’s claim with respect thereto. We, therefore, reinstate Mason’s cross…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637 (Fla. 1933)
- Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1933)
- Ronald v. State ex rel. John S. Harris, 113 Fla. 859 (Fla. 1934)
- Melody Tire Co. v. Julien Zimmerman, 112 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1933)
- Smith v. Tydings, 100 Fla. 1414 (Fla. 1930)