Opinion · District Court of Appeal of Florida
Schwanebeck v. Calzado
524 So. 2d 478
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Date
- 1988-05-03
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- attorney who effected settlement for client after being discharged and replaced entitled only to quantum meruit recovery for services rendered prior to discharge
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schwanebeck v. Calzado. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
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.