Schwanebeck v. Calzado

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Schwanebeck v. Calzado, 524 So. 2d 478 (1988)
13 Fla. L. Weekly 1069; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1755; 1988 WL 40517
Jorgenson, Nesbitt, Schwartz

Schwanebeck v. Calzado

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The attorney appellee, Glassford, who had been retained under a contingency fee contract, effected a $50,000 settlement of his clients’ personal injury action only after he had been discharged and replaced by another lawyer. The trial judge was therefore in error in awarding him a $10,000 fee based upon the occurrence of the contingency.1 Instead, pursuant to Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1982), Glassford was entitled only to a quantum meruit recovery for the services he rendered prior to discharge. The undisputed evidence below was that that fee amounted to $1,150. Upon remand the fee shall be reduced to that amount.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

. In effect, the $20,000 fee, which was 40% of the recovery, was split between Glassford and his successor.

Reference

Full Case Name
Beverly Ann SCHWANEBECK v. Argimiro Eric CALZADO
Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published