Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lennon v. Burdon
Citations: 394 So. 2d 666; 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3637Docket: No. 11402
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 12, 1981; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
A Mississippi lawyer (plaintiff) appeals the dismissal of his suit for attorney’s fees under a contingency contract with the defendant, relating to claims against the defendant's brother, Robert Burdon, who misappropriated estate assets. The contract, signed in Mississippi, entitles the plaintiff to a one-third share of any sums collected from claims against Robert Burdon arising from his administration of their father's estate. The plaintiff engaged a Kentucky attorney to initiate litigation against the defendant's brother, resulting in a settlement wherein the defendant received $10,000 in cash and a yacht valued between $10,000 and $30,000. The plaintiff sought one-third of both the cash and the yacht value. The trial court recognized the validity of the contract but found insufficient evidence to justify an award to the plaintiff. Key evidence consisted solely of testimony from the plaintiff and the defendant, along with the notarized contract. The defendant claimed he was unaware of the contract's full contents and that he perceived the plaintiff's assistance as informal and friendship-based, denying any formal agreement to pay fees. The trial court concluded that while a valid contingency contract existed, the legal services provided by the plaintiff related only to claims against the administrator and did not sufficiently demonstrate that the plaintiff's efforts led to the settlement. No evidence was presented to show that the cash and yacht received were tied to the claims against the brother. Consequently, the trial court affirmed that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof necessary for recovery under the contract, resulting in the affirmation of the judgment.