Irons v. Le Sueur

27 Citing cases

  1. Shirley v. Mazzone

    591 So. 2d 469 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 8 times
    In Shirley, supra, the Court described the issue as "whether the award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs' counsel out of the proceeds of a sale of certain real property in Baldwin County was erroneous."

    "[T]he Court does hereby find that the law firms of Chason Chason, P.C., and Thomas P. Ollinger, Jr., have rendered legal services in this matter which were for the common benefit of the parties hereto and that attorneys fees are otherwise due to be paid to said attorneys out of the sales proceeds in this case. On consideration of the factors set out in Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1986), the Court finds that said attorneys are collectively entitled to the payment of a reasonable attorney fee from the proceeds of sale in this matter in the sum of $ 198,750.00 and that they have advanced expenses in connection with this matter in the amount of $ 5,561.20, for which they are entitled to reimbursement. Said fees and expenses are hereby approved as expenses of sale in this cause and the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to pay those sums to said attorneys from the proceeds of sale on deposit in this cause.

  2. Hancock Bank v. Pastore

    Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00179-JB-C (S.D. Ala. Sep. 17, 2018)

    The reasonableness of an attorney fee under a contract providing for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Peebles v. Miley, 439 So. 2d 137 (Ala. 1983); see [also] Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. 1986); Mann v. Mann, 451 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 1984).

  3. Carver v. Foster

    928 So. 2d 1017 (Ala. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that statements of counsel in briefs are not evidence

    "Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352, 1359 (Ala. 1986). III. AnalysisA.

  4. Bryant v. Robledo

    938 So. 2d 413 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)   Cited 10 times
    In Bryant v. Robledo, 938 So.2d 413 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), the nonclients sued an attorney to recover $15,000 they had paid the attorney to provide legal services to the client, who was the father of one of the nonclients, alleging that the attorney had made false representations that had induced them to enter into a contract with the attorney to provide legal services to the client.

    The Bryants next assert that the trial court erred in ordering that, due to the Bryants' failure to properly or to timely respond to the Robledos' requests for admissions, those matters would be deemed admitted. See Rule 36(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The Bryants rely primarily on the decision of Cole v. Cooley, 547 So.2d 1187 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989), which was ostensibly predicated upon our Supreme Court's holding in Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1986). The underlying facts in Irons were quite unusual.

  5. Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP

    CIVIL ACTION 17-0344-WS-N (S.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2017)   Cited 1 times
    In Miller, this Court concluded that a defendant could not delay removing an action to federal court based on the complaint's ad damnum clause demanding damages of $73,000, after the plaintiff's supplemental discovery responses reflected that she "will claim all damages to which she is entitled," the total of which she listed as $101,533.04.

    Rule 36(b), however, is not to be construed "as a device whereby facts, obviously disputed by the party propounding the request, may be conclusively established against that party." Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Ala. 1986). The rule thus does not apply where, as here, the proponent disputes the accuracy of the admissions.

  6. In re Ochab

    586 B.R. 803 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    The reasonableness of fees is determined on a case-by-case basis by the trial court. Lanier v. Moore–Handley, Inc. , 575 So.2d 83, 85 (Ala. 1991) (citing Irons v. Le Sueur , 487 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1986) ; Mann v. Mann , 451 So.2d 783 (Ala. 1984) ; Peebles v. Miley , 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983).

  7. In re England

    586 B.R. 795 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Discussing the attorney-fee-reasonableness standard under Alabama law, citing Rule 1.5 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and noting that the factors to be considered are almost identical to those adopted by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), a decision that remained binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit after it split from the Fifth

    The reasonableness of fees is determined on a case-by-case basis by the trial court. Lanier v. Moore–Handley, Inc. , 575 So.2d 83, 85 (Ala. 1991) (citing Irons v. Le Sueur , 487 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1986) ; Mann v. Mann , 451 So.2d 783 (Ala. 1984) ; Peebles v. Miley , 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983). "Alabama law reads into every agreement allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees a reasonableness limitation." Willow Lake Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Juliano , 80 So.3d 226, 241 (2010).

  8. Godwin v. Dorgan

    811 So. 2d 503 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 3 times
    In Godwin, supra, the Court did note that a common fund existed from which the attorneys requested that their fees be paid, and the Court stated that § 34-3-60 "plainly authorizes a trial court to order that attorney fees be paid out a common fund created by the sale of property."

    ' Id. . . . While some of the successive codifications, including the present one, have omitted the language that `the services must be for the common benefit of all,' this Court has consistently maintained that condition on the trial judge's authority to award attorney fees pursuant to these codifications. Id. See, e.g., Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352, 1359 (Ala. 1986): "`Likewise, when attorney's fees are allowed under § 34-3-60, [Ala.] Code 1975, it is on the basis of, and solely for, the benefits inuring to the common estate and to the tenants in common and not involving controversy as to respective rights or interests of individual tenants in common.

  9. Huntley v. Regions Bank

    807 So. 2d 512 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting Regions Bank's argument that Huntley, the defendant, failed to properly invoke the arbitration agreement and holding that Regions Bank, as the plaintiff, bore the burden of properly invoking the arbitration agreement

    The reasonableness of an attorney fee under a contract providing for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Peebles v. Miley, 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983); see Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1986); Mann v. Mann, 451 So.2d 783 (Ala. 1984).

  10. Ex Parte Martin

    775 So. 2d 202 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that an attorney fee can be awarded under § 34–3–60 only if the services of the attorney were performed 'for the common benefit of all. '

    Id. (Emphasis added.) While some of the successive codifications, including the present one, have omitted the language that "the services must be for the common benefit of all," this Court has consistently maintained that condition on the trial judge's authority to award attorney fees pursuant to these codifications.Id. See, e.g., Irons v. Le Sueur, 487 So.2d 1352, 1359 (Ala. 1986): "Likewise, when attorney's fees are allowed under § 34-3-60, Code 1975, it is on the basis of, and solely for, the benefits inuring to the common estate and to the tenants in common and not involving controversy as to respective rights or interests of individual tenants in common.