NORMAN N. BLAKELY AND FLORENCE BLAKELY, HIS WIFE, AND OLAVI M. HENDRICKSON AND ELEANOR HENDRICKSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARROLD LEON YELVINGTON, AND RUTH E. YELVINGTON, HIS WIFE, 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.
Clients sued their lawyers to cancel a fee agreement and set aside a conveyance of a one-third property interest, claiming the arrangement was inequitable and unconscionable. The trial court found for the clients, valuing the legal services at $1,750 and ordering reconveyance of the property interest. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the lawyers' argument that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
The complaint stated a valid cause of action under established Florida law regarding transactions between attorneys and clients. The trial court properly found the equities favored the clients and appropriately valued the legal services at $1,750, ordering reconveyance of the property interest and payment of the remaining fee concurrently with delivery of the deed.
“This case represents a dispute between lawyers and their clients over compensation for services. The clients, appellees, filed suit in equity for cancellation of a fee agreement as being inequitable and unconscionable, and to set aside a conveyance made by plaintiffs to the lawyers during the period of their services of a one-third interest in property alleged to be worth $60,000”
Establishes the nature of the dispute and the relief sought by the clients
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lawyers performed legal services for the clients except for a suit to quiet title, which was neglected and dismissed for want of prosecution. Duri…
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 Unconscionability cases and more on FLexlaw
This case represents a dispute between lawyers and their clients over compensation for services. The clients, appellees, filed suit in equity for cancellation of a fee agreement as being inequitable and unconscionable, and to set aside a conveyance made by plaintiffs to the lawyers during the period of their services of a one-third interest in property alleged to be worth $60,000, and seeking a determination of the value of the legal services with an offer to pay the fees so fixed. The intended services were performed except a suit to quiet title, which was neglected and dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendants answered and the cause was tried by the chancellor.
A final decree was entered in which it was found that the equities were with the plaintiffs and that the value of the legal services performed was $1,750, of which $250 had been paid. The decree ordered reconveyance by the defendants of the one-third interest in the property of the plaintiffs, and ordered payment of the fee ($1,-500) to be made concurrently with delivery of the deed to plaintiffs.
Appellants seek reversal on the contention that the complaint as amended did not state a cause of action. The record of the trial proceedings was not brought up. The several arguments advanced by the appellants to show insufficiency of the amended complaint have been considered and found to be without merit. The complaint made a case for the relief sought, under the established law relating to such transactions between attorney and client. See Bolles v. O’Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133; 63 Fla. 354, 59 So. 133; Peacock Hotel v. Shipman, 103 Fla. 633, 138 So. 44; Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers’ Ass’n, 104 Fla. 21, 139 So. 132; Renno v. Sigmon, 148 Fla. 229, 4 So.2d 11. The complaint did not disclose laches. No unreasonable delay appeared, and as between the parties delay alone would not be laches absent a showing of a change of position or circumstances to make it so. Bethea v. Langford, Fla.1949, 45 So.2d 496, 498, and cases cited there. And with reference to the limited effect of delay in a case of this kind, see Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers’ Ass’n, supra, 104 Fla. 621, 139 So. 132, 136.
No error having been made to appear, Ihe decree appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Cordelia Shipman and A. K. Shipman, 103 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1931)
- Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers Ass'n, 104 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1932)
- Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)
- Bolles v. O'Brien, 63 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1912)
- Renno v. Fay R. Sigmon, 148 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1941)
- Bolles v. O'Brien, 63 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1912)