Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

143 So. 2d 62

Docket No. 62-185.

Sobieski v. Maresco

Francis A. SOBIESKI and Anne Dion Sobieski, Appellants, v. Frances MARESCO, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 3, 1962.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1962-07-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The principal issue presented by this appeal is the validity of a contingent fee agreement in a matrimonial action. Neither counsel, in their excellent briefs, nor this court, by independent research, have discovered any Florida decision directly on this point. It does appear, however, that a number of other jurisdictions have passed on the validity of such an agreement and have almost universally declared such employment contracts void. The chancellor's decree, here under review, is in accord with the majority opinion that attorneys' contingent fee employment contracts in matrimonial actions are against public policy and therefore unenforceable. See: McCarthy v. Santangelo (1951), 137 Conn. 410 , 78 A.2d 240 ; In re Fisher (1958), 15 Ill.2d 139 , 153 N.E.2d 832 ; Dannenberg v. Dannenberg (1940), 151 Kan. 600 , 100 P.2d 667 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville (1956), 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N.W.2d 762 ; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Jensen (1960), 171 Neb. 1 , 105 N.W.2d 459 ; In re Smith (1953), 42 Wash.2d 188 , 254 P.2d 464 ; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 166; 30 A.L.R. 189 . There appears to be no good reason why Florida should not join those states which hold such agreements void and unenforceable.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Avant v. Whitten

Relies on Baskerville v. Baskerville · State Ex Rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Jensen · 15 Ill. 2d 139 - In Re Fisher

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-07-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1984

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

40196219701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph J. Gersten, Miami, for appellants.

¶2Albion & Greenfield, Miami, and James C. Shepherd, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

¶3Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

¶4BARKDULL, Judge.

¶5The appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of an interlocutory decree and order, declaring "illegal, void and unenforceable as against public policy" a contract in which the plaintiffs were employed as counsel, upon a contingent fee basis, to represent the appellee in a prior divorce proceeding.

¶6The principal issue presented by this appeal is the validity of a contingent fee agreement in a matrimonial action. Neither counsel, in their excellent briefs, nor this court, by independent research, have discovered any Florida decision directly on this point. It does appear, however, that a number of other jurisdictions have passed on the validity of such an agreement and have almost universally declared such employment contracts void. The chancellor's decree, here under review, is in accord with the majority opinion that attorneys' contingent fee employment contracts in matrimonial actions are against public policy and therefore unenforceable. See: McCarthy v. Santangelo (1951), 137 Conn. 410, 78 A.2d 240; In re Fisher (1958), 15 Ill.2d 139, 153 N.E.2d 832; Dannenberg v. Dannenberg (1940), 151 Kan. 600, 100 P.2d 667; Baskerville v. Baskerville (1956), *63246 Minn. 496, 75 N.W.2d 762; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Jensen (1960), 171 Neb. 1, 105 N.W.2d 459; In re Smith (1953), 42 Wash.2d 188, 254 P.2d 464; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 166; 30 A.L.R. 189. There appears to be no good reason why Florida should not join those states which hold such agreements void and unenforceable.

¶7No error is shown on this record in that portion of the order directing the release of certain documents and funds. Therefore, the decree and order under review is hereby affirmed.

¶8Affirmed.

/143/so2d/62 · .json · Public domain