536 S.E.2d 270 | Ga. Ct. App. | 2000
David Holland appeals from the trial court’s order setting forth the amount of an attorney fee lien on certain insurance proceeds. For reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Many of the relevant facts of this case are discussed in Holland v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co.
On remand, David Holland’s attorney filed a “Motion for Attorneys Fee,” seeking attorney fees and costs in the amount of $11,822.81 pursuant to a contingency fee contract with David Holland. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that “the sum of $2,000.00 for attorney fees, and $110.00 in costs is an appropriate award of attorney fees.” The court refused to apply the contingency fee contract, noting that “the insurer timely paid the entire insurance proceeds, $25,000.00, into the registry of the Court” and that “the majority of the time and expense in litigation in the case concerned the priority of the medical liens which was ultimately resolved against the Hollands.” David Holland appeals, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to calculate the amount of attorney fees pursuant to the contingency fee contract.
We have previously held that an attorney fee lien attaches only to “the fruits of the labor and skill of the attorney ... so long as they are the result of his exertions.”
Judgment affirmed.
236 Ga. App. 832 (513 SE2d 48) (1999).
Id. at 834 (3).
Id.
As an initial matter, we question whether David Holland is the proper party to appeal the trial court’s order. Only a party who has been “aggrieved” by a judgment has the right to appeal the judgment. In the Interest of B. R. W., 242 Ga. App. 232, 238 (3) (530 SE2d 5) (2000). It would appear that the one aggrieved by a ruling that an attorney fee lien does not extend to certain assets is the attorney, not the client. However, we are bound by the law of the case, since in our prior opinion we necessarily decided that David Holland had the right
(Punctuation omitted.) Recoba v. State, 167 Ga. App. 447, 449 (306 SE2d 713) (1983).
Greer, Klosik & Daugherty v. Yetman, 269 Ga. 271, 274 (1) (496 SE2d 693) (1998).