Geneva Ann Singleton v. Percy Foreman
435 F.2d 962, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6173 (1970)
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, a contingent fee contract in a divorce action is void as against public policy, rendering the entire contract unenforceable; additionally, an attorney's abusive conduct and refusal to permit a settlement constitutes a breach of duty that justifies rescission of the employment contract and may support a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Mrs. Singleton consulted Mr. Foreman, a Texas attorney, in Memphis, Tennessee, regarding her marital difficulties.
- The parties signed an employment contract for Foreman to represent Singleton in a Florida divorce action.
- The contract stipulated a $25,000 retainer and a contingent fee of one-third of the value of any recovery obtained in the divorce.
- Singleton delivered jewelry valued at approximately $25,000 to Foreman to secure the retainer.
- Singleton alleges that shortly after hiring Foreman, he verbally abused her, calling her 'stupid' and other obscenities.
- When Singleton attempted to discuss a settlement of the divorce, Foreman allegedly exploded in anger and refused to allow her to settle.
- Foreman allegedly threatened to ruin Singleton and her husband if she attempted to hire another lawyer.
- Singleton discharged Foreman 21 days after retaining him, but Foreman refused to return the jewelry.
Procedural Posture:
- Singleton filed a lawsuit against Foreman in Florida state court.
- Foreman removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- Foreman filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case on the pleadings.
- Singleton appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a client's complaint state a cause of action for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress where the attorney allegedly secured a retainer under a void contingent fee agreement, verbally abused the client, and obstructed a divorce settlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg
Yes, the complaint states valid claims for both breach of contract and tort. Applying Florida conflict of laws rules, Florida law governs because the contract was to be performed there. Under Florida law, contingent fee arrangements in divorce cases are void as against public policy. Because the contract is not divisible, the illegal contingent fee provision renders the entire agreement unenforceable, entitling the client to a return of the retainer. Furthermore, an attorney owes a duty of highest fidelity and cannot prohibit a client from settling a case. Foreman's alleged hostility and obstruction constituted a fundamental breach of the attorney-client relationship, giving Singleton the right to rescind the contract. Finally, the allegations of insult and oppression are sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which punitive damages may be recoverable.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the high fiduciary standard required in the attorney-client relationship, specifically rejecting the notion that an attorney acts as an 'imperator' with authority to override a client's desire to settle. The court clarifies that in Florida, the public policy favoring marriage reconciliation makes contingent fees in divorce cases strictly illegal. By holding that such illegal provisions void the entire contract rather than just the specific clause, the court imposes a strict penalty on attorneys who attempt to utilize them. Additionally, the ruling reinforces the liberal pleading standards in federal court, discouraging the dismissal of complaints unless it is absolutely certain no relief can be granted.
