JAMES MOREHEAD AND MATTIE MOREHEAD, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
v.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKE CITY, A BANKING CORPORATION, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE DIX, ALIAS GEO. DICKS, ALIAS GEORGE DIXON, 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.
In a mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court's award of $150 in attorney's fees to the foreclosing bank's counsel, rejecting the mortgagor's challenge that the fee was excessive. The court affirmed because competent evidence from reputable attorneys supported the reasonableness of the fee under applicable precedent.
The award of $150 in attorney's fees was proper and supported by sufficient evidence. Although the fee was large relative to the amount involved, it was not reversible error because the chancellor's findings were supported by testimony from competent attorneys regarding the reasonableness of the fee.
“The allegations of the bill of complaint and the proof submitted in support thereof complied with the law as stated in this regard in Brett vs. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 Sou. 544, and in subsequent opinions and judgments of this court following the rule there stated.”
Establishes that the procedure for determining reasonable attorney's fees was proper and complied with established legal standards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA foreclosure suit was brought by First National Bank of Lake City as administrator of an estate against the Moreheads on a mortgage. The bank's compl…
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 Chancellor's Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case a final decree was entered in a foreclosure suit requiring the defendant in the court below, Morehead to pay the complainant $525.85 together with the sum of $150.00 as attorney’s fees and the cost of the court to be computed by the Clerk.
The only question presented to us here for consideration is whether or not the court committed reversible error in allowing the sum of $150.00 as attorney’s fees.
The bill of complaint contains the following allegation:
“and complainant says that it has obligated itself to pay to its solicitors, Wilson & Wilson, in this case such reasonable attorney’s fees as shall be allowed by the court for their services for the foreclosure of said mort*523gage and that ten per cent is not a reasonable attorney’s fee to be allowed by the court for such services.”
In support of this allegation Hon. J. B. Hodges, a reputable attorney of Lake City, Florida, testified as follows:
“I have examined the bill and answer, application for injunction and Writ of injunction, as to the amount of work done by the solicitors for complainant. I would say that One Hundred and Fifty Dollars would be a reasonable fee to be allowed them in this matter. This is based on the work done and the fact that the complainant expects to have transmitted a good title by the foreclosure of the mortgage mentioned in the bill.”
Mr. R. W. Farnell, also a reputable attorney of Lake City, Florida, testified to like effect.
Mr. W. H. Wilson, of solicitors for complainant, testified as follows:
“The fee which complainant agreed to pay was to be a reasonable fee as allowed by the court in this ease. Complainant obligated itself to pay such fee as the court determined to be reasonable.”
The allegations of the bill of complaint and the proof submitted in support thereof complied with the law as stated in this regard in Brett vs. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 Sou. 544, and in subsequent opinions and judgments of this court following the rule there stated.
There was no evidence offered contradicting any of that herein quoted.
While it appears to us that the fee allowed was, indeed, large, considering the amount involved, we cannot say that the Chancellor committed reversible error in allowing that fee, because his findings in that regard are supported by the evidence offered touching that issue.
The decree, therefore, should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
*524Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Vining v. Segal, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…nation of whether Segal’s accounts are exempt from garnishment hinges on whether the account monies represent Segal’s “earnings” for his “personal services or labor.” § 222.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Refco, Inc. v. Sarmiento, 487 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Segal testified that the four accounts in question hold the proceeds from his dental practice. Segal operates two offices as a sole proprietorship. Segal uses these accounts to pay…
-
Mrs. v. N. (Minnie Belle) Vandiver, 139 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…882); Olesky v. Nicholas, 82 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1955). That the exemption laws are intended to preserve for the unfortunate citizen and his family certain things necessary to entitle him to earn a livelihood. Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931). In 11 Fla.Law & Practice, 301, Homestead Exemption § 4, it is said: “§ 4. Nature and Purpose — . “The homestead was designed for the head of the family, for the family’s protection, where it can be sheltered and live beyond the reach of f…
-
In re the Est. of Frank C. Deem v. Shinn, 297 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…re of the opinion that there exists a more imperative overriding concept. It is written clearly that the homestead law is to be construed liberally for the benefit of those whom it was designed to protect. Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Hill v. First Nat’l Bank, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190 (1920); Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533, 58 So. 718 (1912); Thomas v. Craft, 55 Fla. 842, 46 So. 594 (1908). See, 16 Fla.Jur. Homesteads, § 4 (1957). And it was designed to protect those whom t…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brett v. The First Nat'l Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1929)