H. A. VIENO, AND ELIZABETH VIENO, HIS WIFE, AND C. B. EWING AND JULIA EWING, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRED FIELDS AND MILEY FIELDS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree but remanded it to strike an attorney's fee award due to a lack of evidence supporting the fee agreement.
No, the award of attorney's fees was improper because there was no allegation or evidence in the record to support the agreement for such fees.
“there is no error in the decree, except as to the amount allowed and decreed to be paid to the complainants as an attorney’s fee for the foreclosure of the mortgage.”
Identifies the specific error found by the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants (defendants) appealed a lower court's decree in favor of the appellees (complainants). The decree included an award for attorney's fees…
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'S Fees In Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judg*192ment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that' there is no error in the decree, except as to the amount allowed and decreed to be paid to the complainants as an attorney’s fee for the foreclosure of the mortgage. There is no allegation in the bill of complaint nor any evidence to show that the complainants had any agreement whatever with their solicitor as to the compensation he should receive for his services in the cause. It is ordered that the cause be, and the same is hereby remanded with directions to the chancellor to reform the decree, by striking therefrom the provisions relating to the allowance of fees to complainants’ for their solicitor, and upon the decree being so modified and entered, that the same stand affirmed. See Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 So. 554; Brooks v. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374, 120 So. 765; Hatch v. Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169, 128 So. 420; Wright v. Merdes, 98 Fla. 859, 124 So. 448.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1935)…ill tolerate no such arrangement. See Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 775, 124 South. Rep. 41; Hatch v. Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169, 128 South. Rep. 420; Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Engler, 104 Fla. 329, 143 South. Rep. 152; Vieno v. Fields, 101 Fla. 191, 133 South. Rep. 891. It does not appear from the pleadings in the case that the defendant made good the tender of the amount she claimed to be due by a proferí in curia. She therefore may not obtain the benefits of her averred tender in computing…
-
Buchanan & Crowder, Inc. v. Kreamer, 120 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1935)…ty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 775, 124 So. 41; Sun City Holding Co. v. Schoenfeld, 97 Fla. 277, 122 So. 252; 1 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.) paragraph 442; 8 C. J. 1101, paragraph 1436; Berns v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1105, 131 So. 654; Vieno v. Fields, 101 Fla. 191, 133 So. 891; Jaudon v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 102 Fla. 782, 136 So. 517; Williams v. Dunn, 108 Fla. 228, 143 So. 161. The note secured by the mortgage contains the following: “Should it become necessary to collect this note, through…
-
Rhea v. DeVault, 108 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1933)…he bill, if such breeches are to be relied on for special relief, such as the recovery of an attorney’s fee by way of indemnity from defendant to complainant, for the latter’s solicitor’s services in conducting the foreclosure suit. Vieno v. Fields, 101 Fla. 191, 133 Sou. Rep. 891. Other points have been argued at length, but they may be disposed of by a reference to the decision of this Court in Tunnicliffe v. Volusia County Bond & Mtge. Co., 103 Fla. 750, 137 Sou. Rep. 885, where this Court said: “A dec…
Authorities Cited
- Brett v. The First Nat'l Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1929)
- Arley M. Hatch v. Maud Barr Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169 (Fla. 1930)
- Brooks v. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1929)
- Wright v. Geo. J. Merdes and Leah B. Merdes, 98 Fla. 859 (Fla. 1929)