Jackson v. Griffith

421 So. 2d 677
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 3, 1982
Docket82-188
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 421 So. 2d 677 (Jackson v. Griffith) 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
Jackson v. Griffith, 421 So. 2d 677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

421 So.2d 677 (1982)

Richard D. JACKSON, Appellant,
v.
Thomas B. GRIFFITH, Appellee.

No. 82-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 3, 1982.

Thomas P. Quinn, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Thomas B. Griffith, Boca Raton, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellee, Thomas B. Griffith, an attorney, sued appellant, Richard D. Jackson, for attorney's fees in relation to a real estate transaction. The complaint was based solely on a written instrument signed by appellant, whereby he agreed to pay appellee a fee of $4,000. In its final judgment, the trial court found that the agreement was void because of coercion, duress, and threats directed by appellee against appellant at the time appellant signed the agreement. It was the view of the trial court that appellant would not have signed the document but for said coercion, duress, and threats. The court thus denied appellee's claim for $4,000. However, the court awarded appellee $1,500 in attorney's fees on the equitable principle of quantum meruit.

We reverse. Initially, we note that appellee did not allege quantum meruit or unjust enrichment in his complaint. Further, appellee did not make a motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b). In any event, the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to permit an amendment of the pleadings.

We are also troubled by the court's award of a fee based on the equitable doctrine unjust enrichment following on the heels of its finding of coercion and duress. *678 Certainly, an attorney displaying conduct sufficient to void an agreement in law should not be allowed to profit from his blatantly unprofessional conduct in equity.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR APPELLANT.

HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Gilbert
348 P.3d 970 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2013)
Marcus v. Sullivan
701 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
LAW OFFICES GOLDBERG v. Fazio
659 So. 2d 1200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
SEARCY, DENNEY v. Scheller
629 So. 2d 947 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Lance Holding Co. v. Ashe
533 So. 2d 929 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 So. 2d 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-griffith-fladistctapp-1982.