MARIA TART, AS ADMINISTRATRIX CUM TESTAMENTO ANNEXO OF THE ESTATE OF CELIA FRANK, DECEASED, AND URBAN WESTENBERGER, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY PREBISH AND CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, 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 court affirmed an attorney's $25,000 fee for criminal defense but reversed the $25,000 fee for property acquisition services where the attorney either gave incorrect advice or performed no work.
An attorney may recover a reasonable fee for services actually rendered, but not for services not performed or based on incorrect legal advice.
[1] An attorney cannot recover a fee for legal services not performed or for services based on incorrect legal advice to the client.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Prebish, an attorney, agreed with Celia Frank to defend her in a second-degree murder charge for $25,000 and to assist in acquiring certain real…
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 Entireties Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Harry Prebish, attorney at law, entered an agreement with Celia Frank to defend her in connection with a second degree murder charge pending against her for the murder of her husband and to further represent her in the acquisition of certain real property. The agreed upon fee for the criminal case was $25,000, and the fee in the property acquisition was $25,000.
*617 Mrs. Frank died and Prebish filed suit against her estate for the balance due him. The trial court found for Prebish and the estate appeals. There is no question that the $25,000 fee for representation in the criminal case was agreed upon by the parties and earned by Appellee Prebish. The $25,000 fee for securing certain property for Mrs. Frank is another matter. It appears from the record that Prebish may have advised the deceased incorrectly as to the danger of losing certain property held with her husband by the entireties as a result of the murder of her husband. It further appears that even if the advice Prebish gave to Mrs. Frank was correct, he did nothing to assist her in securing the property in question.
This court therefore finds that the trial court was correct in upholding the fee for defense of the criminal action, but erred in upholding the fee for the property transaction. The judgment should be reduced by $25,000.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…n interests as a party herein. It is elementary that a trial court has no authority to award attorney’s fees under the above statute for legal services which have not, in fact, been rendered to the party seeking such fees. See e. g, Tart v. Prebish, 257 So. 2d 616 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., D.R. 2-106. Affirmed. Motion for attorney’s fees denied.…