Krueger v. Kutlesic ex rel. Swan
This text of 559 So. 2d 1257 (Krueger v. Kutlesic ex rel. Swan) 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.
Opinion
The attorneys for the ward seek review of an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs under their contingent fee agreement, and orders denying motions for disqualification of the trial judge. We affirm.
The appellants agreed to undertake representation of the ward on a somewhat reduced contingent fee basis, and obtained excellent results for the ward. Contrary to appellants’ assertion on this appeal, however, the trial court correctly interpreted the fee agreement and awarded the appropriate percentage. Where, as here, counsel is unsuccessful in obtaining interlocutory appellate review, the provision in the agreement for an additional percentage award for appellate work is not triggered.
With regard to the question of valuation of the overall award, a trial court has wide latitude. While appellants’ contention about valuation is a substantial one, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. We therefore affirm the award. On appellants’ final point, the motions for disqualification were properly denied.
Affirmed.
A petition for certiorari was denied, and an interlocutory appeal was dismissed because the order was nonfinal and non-appealable.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
559 So. 2d 1257, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2555, 1990 WL 45297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krueger-v-kutlesic-ex-rel-swan-fladistctapp-1990.