Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1988

Schwanebeck v. Calzado

Schwanebeck v. Calzado
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 3, 1988 · Jorgenson, Nesbitt, Schwartz
524 So. 2d 478; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1069; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1755; 1988 WL 40517 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.