Schaller v. Frost
Filed 6/30/06 Schaller v. Frost CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
| JOHN C. SCHALLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CAROLINE L. FROST, Defendant and Respondent; ALAN R. LOTSPEICH, as Administrator, etc., Defendant, Appellant and Respondent. | C048176
(Super. Ct. No. 130178) |
| JOHN C. SCHALLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CAROLINE L. FROST, Defendant and Respondent. |
C049250
(Super. Ct. No. 130178)
|
Caroline L. Frost (Frost) retained attorney John C. Schaller (Schaller) to represent her in the probate proceedings of her late husband's estate. The retainer agreement between Schaller and Frost created a lien against Frost's interest in the estate for any unpaid sums she owed him. Prior to final distribution, the probate court distributed the family residence to Frost, it was conveyed to her, and a month later, the court placed an equitable lien on that property in favor of the estate for payment of the administrative fees and costs. Meanwhile, Frost filed for bankruptcy, listing Schaller as an unsecured creditor, prompting Schaller to withdraw as her attorney. Representing himself, Schaller then brought the instant suit against Frost to foreclose his lien, seeking to recover $77,164.64 in fees, costs, and interest.
The trial court in the instant action ruled that Schaller had a valid lien, it was entitled to enforcement, and it had first priority over the later created equitable lien. However, the court found the amount requested was unconscionable and reduced the award to $10,000.
Schaller appeals from the judgment (C048176) and contends the trial court was without authority to reduce the amount of his attorney fees. Alan Lotspeich, the administrator of the Estate of Frost (Estate), filed a cross-appeal, contending the trial court erred in ruling that Schaller's contractual lien had priority over the Estate's lien.
After judgment, Schaller moved to recover $19,220 in attorney fees for litigating the fee dispute. The trial court denied the motion to the extent Schaller sought to recover attorney fees for representing himself. He now appeals from that order (C049250) contending he is entitled to recover those fees pursuant to the terms of the retainer agreement.
We have consolidated the two appeals. We find no error in the judgment and shall affirm it. We shall reverse the order granting Schaller $260 in attorney fees as the prevailing party because those fees were not allowed under the agreement and were contrary to law.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2000, Fred L. Frost (decedent) died, leaving Frost as his surviving wife. In his will, the decedent named Frost, his daughter Elizabeth and his son David as beneficiaries. Elizabeth was also designated the executrix. The will stated that Frost was to receive the family residence (residence) â€
