147 So. 3d 578
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jaffe sought to recover fees for Carr's guardianship work and disputed Carr's hourly rate and costs; no retainer existed for guardianship services; a 40% contingency fee was agreed in the probate case but did not address guardianship fees; Michael Jaffe's probate settlement netted $120,000 and was placed in a restricted guardianship account; Carr billed $27,393.23 for guardianship work and Jaffe refused payment; the Florida Bar complaint was lodged by Jaffe and settlement negotiations ensued but stalled over withdrawal of the Bar complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of a settlement arising from negotiations | Jaffe contends preliminary talks show a meeting of minds creating an enforceable agreement. | Carr/estate argue the agreement lacked essential, specific terms and was not enforceable. | No enforceable settlement reached; negotiations incomplete. |
| Effect of withdrawal of the Florida Bar complaint on the settlement | Jaffe argues withdrawal is essential term; its absence means no enforceable deal. | Tilts toward severability argument but court rejects severability. | Withdrawal is an essential term; the contract is not severable to enforce the remainder. |
| Severability of the illegal term in the settlement | If illegal term prevents enforcement of the agreement, severability should salvage remaining terms. | Term goes to the essence of the settlement; cannot sever from the agreement. | Illegal term went to the essence; agreement not severable. |
| Reasonableness and award of Carr's fees | Jaffe challenges reasonableness and amount of Carr's fees; expert testimony required. | Trial court properly considered expert Levy and Zamora; reserved jurisdiction to fix fees. | Fees awarded and costs awarded; expert testimony supported reasonableness; court reserved jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (preliminary negotiations alone do not form an enforceable settlement; must be sufficiently specific)
- Local No. 234 v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1953) (illegal term may render an agreement unenforceable if it goes to the essence and cannot be severed)
- Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000) (withdrawal of a Bar complaint can be an essential term in a settlement)
- Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1989) (discusses enforceability related to Bar complaints)
- Grimsley v. Inverrary Resort Hotel, Ltd., 748 So.2d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (necessity of specificity in releases for enforceability)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 400 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (reasonableness of attorney's fees requires competent substantial evidence)
- Ramle Int'l Corp. v. Greens Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 32 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (trial court may reserve jurisdiction to determine fees and costs)
- Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1985) (expert testimony may be taxed as costs for fee-witness)
- Murphy v. State, 667 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (unsworn testimony objections cannot be raised for first time on appeal)