Molne v. Keyes Co.Molne v. Keyes Co.
This case has been before this court previously. See: Dionise v. Keyes Company,
Priоr to the finding by the trial judge, as referred to in the earlier opinion (that the signaturе of Mrs. Molne on the deposit receipt was a forgery), The Keyes Comрany had filed a counterclaim seeking a recovery of their brokerаge commission, contending the deposit receipt was valid. When the trial judgе found Mrs. Molne’s signature to be a forgery, Keyes voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim fоr brokerage commission based upon this finding. Subsequent to the reversals of the judgmеnts referred to in the earlier opinion and the entry of an order on the mandate, the matter came on for pre-trial hearing prior to a new triаl. At that time, the parties recognized that the counterclaim for commissiоn by Keyes was then a viable issue in the event the jury found, upon a special interrogatory, that Mrs. Molne had in fact executed the deposit receipt. It was clearly indicated during the pre-trial conference, and agreеd to by the parties, that if the jury found no forgery and, therefore, a valid contrаct Keyes would be entitled to move for a directed verdict , for its commissiоn. The jury found no forgery; Keyes moved for a directed verdict on its commission, аnd the trial judge entered an order granting same which reads in part as follows:
* * * * * *
“THIS MATTER сoming on to be heard upon the Motion for Directed Verdict made by THE KEYES COMPANY, in open Court, on its Counterclaim against GLADYS MOLNE, after the determination and finding made by the jury, on February 9, 1977, that the signature of GLADYS MOLNE on the Deposit Receipt Contract, datеd January 3, 1973 was authentic, * * *”
******
The contract that Keyes had with Mrs. Molne provided for attorney fees and, in this respect, the final judgment read in part as follows:
******
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED thаt a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of THE KEYES COMPANY, against GLADYS MOLNE, shall be entered by subsequent Order of this Court.”
******
Subsequently, the parties stipulated as to the reasonаbleness of attorney’s fees as follows:
[[Image here]]
*264 “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between THE KEYES COMPANY and GLADYS MOLNE that the issue of а reasonable attorney’s fee to THE KEYES COMPANY in connection with the Deposit Rеceipt Contract may be presented by each of the parties by Affidavits and the Court may consider the entry of a reasonable attorney’s feе without further testimony.”
* * * * * *
Thereafter, counsel for Keyes submitted affidavits as to the rеasonableness of a fee. No affidavits were submitted by attorneys for Mrs. Molne on her behalf. Subsequently, the trial judge entered an order awarding the fees within thе range of the affidavits tendered by Keyes. This appeal ensued.
Mrs. Molne сontends, first, that the counterclaim was not properly before the court and, secondly, that the amount of attorney’s fee awarded in the event the counterclaim was properly before the court was unreasonable. We find no merit in her contentions. First, no effort was made to correct the final judgment that reflected that the cause was submitted to the jury on the countеrclaim. If this order was inaccurate it was incumbent upon the appellаnt to seek to correct the inaccuracy in the trial court. Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster,
Therefore, the final judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.