Chatman v. London

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chatman v. London

579 So. 2d 305, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4294, 1991 WL 74812

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1991

DocketNo. 90-01781

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 305 (Chatman v. London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4294, 1991 WL 74812 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Manicia Chatman, appeals a trial court’s order which awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Mulholland & Associates, her former attorneys. We affirm.

Chatman employed Mulholland & Associates to represent her in a personal injury action. After the pretrial conference and after an offer of settlement had been filed, Chatman dismissed Mulholland. Chatman then settled the case. Mulholland filed a motion for fees for work it had performed. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge entered an order finding that Mulhol-land was dismissed without cause and awarded fees and costs.

An attorney discharged without cause is entitled to the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit in an amount not to exceed the amount due under the contract with the client. Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1982). In this case the trial court entered an order which substantially complied with the requirements of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified on other grounds, Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990).

In this appeal, Chatman failed to include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. She also failed to file a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Because the order on its face does not reveal any abuse of discretion, we affirm the award of fees. See Novom v. Novom, 513 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Manicia Chatman, appeals a trial court’s order which awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Mulholland & Associates, her former attorneys. We affirm.

Chatman employed Mulholland & Associates to represent her in a personal injury action. After the pretrial conference and after an offer of settlement had been filed, Chatman dismissed Mulholland. Chatman then settled the case. Mulholland filed a motion for fees for work it had performed. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge entered an order finding that Mulhol-land was dismissed without cause and awarded fees and costs.

An attorney discharged without cause is entitled to the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit in an amount not to exceed the amount due under the contract with the client. Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1982). In this case the trial court entered an order which substantially complied with the requirements of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified on other grounds, Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990).

In this appeal, Chatman failed to include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. She also failed to file a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Because the order on its face does not reveal any abuse of discretion, we affirm the award of fees. See Novom v. Novom, 513 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 305, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4294, 1991 WL 74812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatman-v-london-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack