 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Culpepper & Carroll3/9/2005
CARAWAY, J., dissents with written reasons.
In this dispute over attorney fees under an alleged contingent fee contract, Defendant, Connie D. Cole, proceeding pro se in this appeal, argues that insufficient evidence existed to support the trial court's decision to award Plaintiff, Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC, the sum of $6,950.01, plus legal interest, together with an additional 25 percent on principal and interest as attorney fees. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is amended and, as amended, affirmed.
FACTS
On April 12, 2004, Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC ("Culpepper"), filed a petition on open account in Ruston City Court against Connie D. Cole ("Cole") seeking $6,950.01, plus legal interest, together with an additional 25 percent on both the principal and interest as attorney fees. Attached to the petition were a November 12, 2003 demand letter and a November 3, 2003 invoice in the amount of $6,950.01 for attorney fees in connection with a matter entitled "Succession of Annie Ruth Brown." The invoice indicated that the balance due was calculated by taking one-third of $21,600.03 and subtracting from it a $250 credit, representing advance court costs paid by Cole. Evidence adduced at the subsequent trial showed that the $21,600.03 represented the amount of a settlement that Culpepper had negotiated with opposing counsel in the succession matter in which Culpepper represented Cole. Thus, the $6,950.01 represented a fee Culpepper claimed had been earned pursuant to a contingent fee contract entered into between Culpepper and Cole.
Cole filed an answer stating that "Mr. Culpepper did this on a contingency fee basis," that Culpepper "quit the case" and that Cole paid Culpepper for court costs, but Culpepper "would not go to court." In a written explanation of his answer, Cole admitted that he consulted with Culpepper on the succession of Annie Ruth Brown, but Cole asserted that he refused any more consultation from Culpepper and pursued the case on his own behalf. He stated that the settlement amount that Culpepper had attempted to get Cole to accept left Cole "feeling as if his counsel was unfaithful and leaving him virtually unrepresented." Cole attached to his answer a copy of a letter from Culpepper to Cole dated September 20, 2000. The letter indicated that Culpepper would handle Cole's legal representation in the succession of Annie Ruth Brown on a contingent fee basis for "one-third of whatever additional property or money we can get for you." The letter also acknowledged that Cole had already advanced $250 for estimated court costs. The letter then discussed legal issues that Culpepper considered pertinent in the matter, noted that the net value of the estate was $183,000 and indicated that Culpepper considered one-eighth of the estate, or $22,900, to be the maximum Cole could get if Cole could be considered a forced heir. Thus, Culpepper's letter indicated to Cole that, since Cole already had received $2,500 in value, $20,400 would be the maximum amount Cole could expect to win in the case.
In addition, the letter indicated that Culpepper probably could get opposing counsel to recommend a settlement to his clients, although they obviously would not pay the entire amount because the law was unclear concerning forced heirship issues under the facts of this case.
When the matter came on for trial on July 14, 2004, counsel for Culpepper first called Cole as an adverse witness. Cole generally was unresponsive as a witness, but did make some critical admissions. Cole admitted that, under the "so-called" will, Cole would have received $2,500 in land, and Cole remembered Culpepper "saying something about if I go
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|