Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

King v. Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf

District Court of Appeal of Florida
709 So. 2d 572 (1998)


Facts

Richard King (defendant) hired the law firm of Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A. (plaintiff) (firm) to represent him in his divorce proceedings. The firm prepared a fee agreement that provided for a $25,000 retainer and set the hourly rates that the firm would charge. The fee agreement also included a section that stated that if the matter concluded with a divorce for King, the firm would be entitled to an additional fee, which was referred to as a “bonus” fee, that would be determined by the firm and would be reasonable and fair. During the divorce proceedings, King paid $342,989 to the firm based on the hourly rates charged by the firm. The firm secured a divorce for King. After the matter ended, the firm demanded King pay the firm a $750,000 bonus. King refused to pay the bonus. The firm sued King, seeking a $1,150,000 bonus. The trial court awarded the firm $525,000 in additional fees. King appealed the trial court’s award. King argued that the bonus clause of the fee agreement was unenforceable, because it created an improper contingency fee based on results obtained in a divorce proceeding.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Green, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.