IN RE ESTATE OF SAMUEL BUCHMAN, DECEASED. THE LAW FIRM OF TURNER, HENDRICK, GUILFORD, GOLDSTEIN & MCDONALD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL BUCHMAN, DECEASED, 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.
A law firm appealing an award of attorneys' fees in an estate probate is bound by its written fee agreement with the estate's executors and cannot recover additional compensation for extraordinary services beyond the agreed amount.
A law firm is bound by the terms of a written fee agreement with estate executors and cannot recover fees exceeding the agreed amount, even if extraordinary services were performed.
[1] A law firm is bound by a written fee agreement with estate executors and cannot recover additional compensation for extraordinary services beyond the agreed amount.
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 intelligenceThe Law Firm of Turner, Hendrick, Guilford, Goldstein & McDonald entered into a letter agreement with the co-executors of Samuel Buchman's estate esta…
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 Extraordinary Services cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the Law Firm of Turner, Hendrick, Guilford, Goldstein and McDonald from an order of the lower court which granted appellant attorneys’ fees for its work during the probate of the estate of Samuel Buchman. A letter agreement written by appellant was reached between the law firm and the co-executors of the estate in which a fee of Three Thousand Dollars was established to represent the “total sum that would be charged for the completion of the estate”. It is urged on appeal that the fee in the letter agreement related only to ordinary and reasonable services as opposed to extraordinary services and that the lower court erred by not taking this into consideration in holding appellant to the terms of this agreement. The record on appeal reveals that the trial judge made a proper award for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the agreement under which appellant was obligated. Although appellant may have been entitled to a larger award the agreement limits the fee charged and appellant is thereby bound by its terms. 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts 8 2 (1956).
In an additional point raised on appeal it is alleged that the trial court erred in considering the question of attorneys’ fees solely by affidavit and thereby denying appellant the opportunity to present oral testimony with regards to this ques-ton. We find that no error was committed since appellant agreed to this procedure; however, the question is moot because appellant is bound by its written agreement on the amount to be charged for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, the lower court’s order allowing attorneys’ fees is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Dora Lonstein, 433 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…he agreement under which appellant was obligated. Although appellant may have been entitled to a larger award the agreement limits the fee charged and appellant is thereby bound by its terms. 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts § 2 (1956). In Re Estate of Buchman, 270 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The quoted fee of $2,000 was for the entire probate proceeding and no distinction was made between ordinary and extraordinary services as is often done in such contracts. Although the estate has not been closed, since Fette…
-
Brooks v. Degler, 712 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…Estate of Lonstein, 433 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (attorney held limited to agreed-upon $2000 fee even though under quantum meruit his work was worth $10,000 because of unforeseen complications with the representation); In re Estate of Buchman, 270 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (limiting attorney to $3000 fee agreed to in contract). However, these cases are distin [*421] guishable for two reasons. First, here Ap-pellees, if entitled to fees under the terms of the contract, would actually receive more, ra…