Dinallo v. Gunster
768 So.2d 468, 768 So.2d 468, 2000.FL.0046354
Florida Court of Appeal
This book is available for download with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device, and with iTunes on your computer. Books can be read with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device.
This appeal arises from a final judgment enforcing an attorneys charging lien for attorneys fees in connection with the representation of beneficiaries in a complex probate case. The law firms cross-appeal the trial courts valuation as to the Juno Associates asset. The appellants/clients complain that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the fee agreement between the parties and as a consequence erred in valuing estate assets, which was the basis of calculation of the attorneys fee. Because the agreement was ambiguous, the court interpreted the agreement in favor of the position of the attorneys based upon the evidence presented. We affirm the trial courts ruling, except as to the inclusion of the value of tax savings and a non-existent asset for the attorneys fee calculation.