10 results for 'cat:"Fiduciary Duty" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
J. Smith finds that the trial court properly and improperly ruled in a breach of fiduciary duty case filed by the co-owner of a corporation against an attorney who represented the corporation in litigation. The co-owners alleged in their complaint that the attorney failed to inform the corporation's board of directors of a possible conflict of interest and aided another owner of the corporation in starting a competing firm. Nothing in the evidence establishes a relationship between the co-owner and the attorney. However, remaining questions on the award of attorney fees in this litigation still exist and should be adjudicated. Affirmed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Smith, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 03-22-00234-CV, Categories: Corporations, fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees
J. Doyle finds that the trial court improperly granted the former trustees an interlocutory injunction requiring the current trustees to pay attorney fees and litigation costs incurred by the former trustees. The order arose in a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by the trust beneficiaries against the former trustees. The evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the injunction is necessary to prevent an irreparable harm. The trial court correctly denied the beneficiaries' request that the trust be reimbursed for $4.6 million in fees already paid to the former trustees' attorneys pursuant to an earlier order in the case which was vacated by the appeals court. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: A23A1402, Categories: fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees
J. Peterson partially grants the father's motion for attorney fees and costs in a lawsuit against his son and others involving a dispute between family over ownership of a company that runs multiple car dealerships. The father is awarded one-third of his total request for attorney fees, which will amount to $204,402, and he is also awarded $60,033 in costs, bringing his total award to $264,435.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv980, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Hixson finds the trial court properly denied a law firm’s motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the truth in this suit brought on claims that the other firm breached a fee-sharing agreement. The motion to amend could have been requested at various points during the 13-year process of litigation. Though, being it is undisputed that an involved attorney was accommodated with an office at the law firm, instead of denying his unjust enrichment claim because of the finding that there was no enforceable contract, the court should have considered the evidence and decided on the basis of proper standards. Because the court of appeals reverses on direct appeal, it declines to address the other firm’s argument on cross appeal concerning the court’s denial of attorney fees. Affirmed in part on direct appeal. Reversed and remanded in part on direct appeal. Cross appeal dismissed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: CV-20-213, Categories: fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Perkins finds a lower court partly, improperly instructed a fiduciary services company to reimburse fees imposed on a conservatorship of a ward's estate, who lacks capacity to make compensation decisions. The fiduciary services company argued that the lower court properly awarded its request for fees. However, the conservator presented sufficient evidence in court that the fiduciary services company is obligated to reimburse fees for failure to submit notice for non-compliance, which precludes compensation. Reversed.
Court: Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One, Judge: Perkins, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: 1 CA-CV 22-429, Categories: Evidence, fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees
J. Pedersen finds that the lower court properly ruled on the attorney ad litem's application for attorney fees in this guardianship proceeding. The attorney argues that "a finding of a breach of fiduciary duty" was necessary for fee disgorgement, but the law related to breach of fiduciary duty was not implicated. Further, the offset was authorized by the estates code. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Pedersen, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 05-21-00940-CV, Categories: fiduciary Duty, Guardianship, attorney Fees
J. Mercier finds that the trial court improperly ruled in favor of the consulting service on its breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the staffing service in an action arising from the staffing service's alleged violation of an asset sales agreement. Questions of fact remain as to whether the consulting service waived strict compliance with the agreement and whether the parties modified the agreement. Questions of fact also remain as to the amount owed to the consulting service and whether the staffing service properly withheld any of the payments. The trial court incorrectly found in favor of the consulting service on the staffing service's request for attorney fees. However, the trial court correctly refused to find in favor of the consulting service on the staffing service's breach of contract and unjust enrichment counterclaims. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Mercier, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: A23A1042, Categories: fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Davis finds the lower court properly determined that a brother, acting as attorney-in-fact, had the authority to create a second trust, and it properly dismissed claims against another brother as he has no role in the management or administration of the trusts. There is a question as to whether the brother breached his fiduciary duties as attorney-in-fact and trustee by providing his brother with lifetime income associated with the decedents’ rental property business as it was not part of the original or amended trust. Because a question of material fact remains, the instant court vacates the lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the brother for appellant’s claims that he failed to provide accounting, enforcement of the no-contest provision of the trust, and attorney fees, and the matter is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Reversed in part.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Davis, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: E2022-01034-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Trusts, fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees