Dunbar, et al. v. Renfroe, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CP-01208-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CP-01208-COA ; 2001-CT-01208-SCT ; 2001-CT-01208-SCT ; 2001-CT-01208-SCT ; 2001-CT-01208-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-18-2003
Opinion Author: King, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Attorneys’ fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, Thomas, Lee, and Myers, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Lee, J. Votes: King, P.J., Thomas and Myers, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J.
Dissenting Author : Southwick, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : McMillin, C.J., Irving and Chandler, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2011
Appealed from: Scott County Chancery Court
Judge: H. David Clark
Disposition: AFFIRMED AMENDMENT TO ATTORNEY'S FEES
Case Number: 2001-300

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: In the Matter of the Guardianship of Daisy Pearl Savell: David C. Dunbar, Esq. and the Law Firm of Dunbar Monroe, PLLC




DAVID C. DUNBAR WILEY JOHNSON BARBOUR



 

Appellee: Shirley Renfroe and Marguerite Jordan HEZ L. HOLLINGSWORTH  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Attorneys’ fees

Summary of the Facts: Shirley Renfroe and Marguerite Jordan, acting as attorneys in fact for their mother Daisy Savell, entered into a retainer agreement and contract of employment with the law firm of Holcomb, Dunbar, Connell, Chaffin and Willard, P.A., specifically retaining David Dunbar to pursue a personal injury claim against Shady Lawn Nursing Home on Savell's behalf. Dunbar subsequently left the Holcomb, Dunbar law firm and formed Dunbar Monroe, PLLC. Renfroe and Jordan executed a second retainer agreement and contract of employment with DunbarMonroe, PLLC, retaining Dunbar and authorizing him to continue with the prosecution of the personal injury claim. Both contracts provided that if suit were filed, the attorney's fees would be forty percent of gross proceeds after the deduction of the law firm's expenses incurred in prosecuting the claim. Dunbar eventually received an offer to settle the claim which Renfroe and Jordan decided to accept. Prior to extension of the settlement offer, Savell's mental facilities diminished rendering her incompetent to administer her affairs. Dunbar, acting on behalf of Renfroe, individually and as conservatrix of the Estate of Savell, and the DunbarMonroe Law Firm, filed a petition for authority to settle a doubtful claim on behalf of the estate, requesting the approval of the employment contract with Dunbar, and for authority to disburse the settlement proceeds. The chancellor approved settlement of the claim and approved attorneys’ fees of 33 1/3% plus costs. DunbarMonroe appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: DunbarMonroe argues that it was employed under a durable power of attorney with agreed compensation of 40% of recovery, and the chancellor therefore lacked the authority to lower the agreed upon compensation. All of the parties to the contract chose to voluntarily submit to the chancellor for approval the settlement of the claim and the disbursement of funds paid in settlement of this claim. Included within the power to approve is the power to disapprove. Where the chancellor's decision is not manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial credible evidence, it is not an abuse of discretion. The chancellor submitted extensive written findings as to the reasons for awarding attorney's fees of only 331/3% rather than 40%, and his actions were supported by substantial credible evidence.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court