I. J. A. RENNO,
v.
FAY R. SIGMON
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.
In a divorce proceeding, an attorney sought to impress a lien on funds in the court registry to secure payment of his legal fees. The trial court awarded the attorney an additional $150 beyond the $582.50 already paid, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the attorney had not met his burden of clearly demonstrating that the chancellor abused his discretion in fixing the fee amount.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of an additional $150 in attorney's fees, holding that the attorney failed to clearly demonstrate an abuse of judicial discretion. The court established that when a fee dispute arises between attorney and client, the burden is on the attorney to show not only that conditions support his position but also that he took no advantage of the client.
“When a justiciable controversy arises between attorney and client as to fees alleged to be due the attorney, or as to interest acquired by attorney as to any property involved in the litigation, the burden is on the attorney to show not only the existence of conditions supporting his position, but to also show that no advantage has been taken by him.”
Establishes the legal standard that attorneys seeking fees bear the burden of proving both entitlement and ethical conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a divorce suit, funds were paid into the court registry as the complainant's property. After the suit concluded, the complainant and his attorn…
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 Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
In a divorce suit certain funds were paid into the registry of the court as property of the complainant.. At the conclusion of the suit complainant and his attorney failed to agree upon the amount of compensation due the attorney.
Attorney filed petition to' impress a lien on the funds, supra, for the payment of such fee as should by the Court be adjudicated to be due the attorney from his client.
Decree impressing the lien as prayed was entered.
Much testimony was taken. It is conflicting and not to be reconciled as to the real issue. On final *230hearing the chancellor entered his order, which, inter alia, is:
“It appears unto the Court that from the funds in controversy the plaintiff has recovered the sum now in the registry of the court; that from said funds have been paid $500.00 master’s fee, that a court reporter’s fee for transcribing testimony has been paid in the sum of $322.00; that the claimant has already been paid the sum of $582.50 as an attorney’s fee, and his associate counsel has been paid or promised $350.00.”
“The case was not by nature a complicated one, even though it did take seventeen months to dispose of-it, and even though the costs were more than might reasonably have been expected under normal conditions.”
“All things being considered, it appears that the plaintiff has already been partially compensated for the value of his services to his client, and the court failing to find that any expressed agreement was ever made between the attorney or his client, in consideration of the premises, it is thereupon,”
“Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the petitioner, I. J. A. Renno be awarded the additional sum of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00), and that the Clerk of this Court pay to I. J. A. Renno the sum of One Hundred and Fifty ($150.00) Dollars to be deducted from any funds now in the registry of the court, for the said Fay R. Sigmon; and the said Clerk shall pay unto the said Fay R. Sigmon the remainder of said funds now in the registry of the Court on or after today.”
While the testimony taken in consideration with the balance of the record might have warranted the *231chancellor in reaching a conclusion more favorable to the attorney, we cannot say that there clearly has been made to appear an abuse of judicial discretion in this regard.
When a justiciable controversy arises between attorney and client as to fees alleged to be due the attorney, or as to interest acquired by attorney as to any property involved in the litigation, the burden is on the attorney to show not only the existence of conditions supporting his position, but to also show that no advantage has been taken by him. See Hal-stead v. Florence Citrus Growers Association, 104 Fla. 21, 139 Sou. 132; DeVant v. Lambdin, 135 Fla. 700, 186 Sou. 201.
Appellant has not made it clearly to appear that reversible error is disclosed by the record.
Decree is affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)…attorneys’ fees. Because this decision directly and expressly conflicts with decisions of this Court in Greenfield Villages, Inc. v. Thompson, 44 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1950), In re Warner’s Estate, 160 Fla. 460, 35 So. 2d 296 (1948), and Renno v. Sigmon, 148 Fla. 229, 4 So. 2d 11 (1941), we have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Petitioner represented Ruby Baucom in divorce proceedings and in a protracted property dispute against Phillip Baucom. After several years…
-
Kingsley H. Gerlach v. Jess Stanley Donnelly under the Last Will and Testament of Emmett Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1957)…pon full and adequate consideration. Bolles v. O’Brien, 1912, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133. See also Williams v, Bailey, 1915, 69 Fla. 225, 67 So. 877; Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers’ Ass’n, 1932, 104 Fla. 21, 139 So. 132; and Renno v. Sigmon, 1941, 148 Fla. 229, 4 So. 2d 11. The latest expression of this Court upon the subject is found in Brass v. Reed, Fla. 1953, 64 So. 2d 646, 648, where among other things, we said: “The only difference in dealings between attorney and client and other people is that r…
-
Balatsos v. Neb. Ave. Cafe & Liquor Store, 159 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1947)…igation must always be relevant. The carrier has never denied liability nor declined payment. The burden to establish attorneys' fees is always on the claimant. Brett v. The First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 So. 554; Renno v. Sigmon, 148 Fla. 229, 4 So. 2d 11. The appellants have not carried this burden. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record the Circuit Judge was correct in not assessing the attorneys' fees against the carrier. See Ex parte Shaw, Shaw v. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers Ass'n, 104 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1932)
- Davant v. Lambdin, 135 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1939)