Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorney
lawsuitattorney

Related Cases

In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Rochon, 686 F.Supp. 195
View Case »
In re Estate of Rothenberg, 176 Ill.App.3d 176, 530 N.E.2d 1148, 125 Ill.Dec. 739
View Case »
Euge v. U.S., 464 U.S. 1047, 104 S.Ct. 721 (Mem), 79 L.Ed.2d 183
View Case »
B.U.U. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, 572 U.S. 1088, 134 S.Ct. 1949 (Mem), 188 L.Ed.2d 962, 82 USLW 3567, 82 USLW 3626, 82 USLW 3630
View Case »
Payne v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 908, 553 P.2d 565, 132 Cal.Rptr. 405
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hotel Associates, Inc. v. Rieves, Rubens and Mayton, 2014 Ark. 254, 435 S.W.3d 488

Facts

In 2005, J.O. 'Buddy' House retained attorney Kent J. Rubens to represent Hotel Associates, Inc. in a lawsuit against Holiday Inn Franchising, Inc. The engagement was not documented in writing, but it was agreed that Hotel would pay a contingency fee of one-third of any recovery. After Rubens's sudden death in 2008, attorney Timothy Dudley continued the representation with House's consent. The case resulted in a significant jury award, leading to disputes over the attorney's fees and the enforceability of the oral agreement.

In 2005, J.O. 'Buddy' House retained attorney Kent J. Rubens to represent Hotel Associates, Inc. in a lawsuit against Holiday Inn Franchising, Inc. The engagement was not documented in writing, but it was agreed that Hotel would pay a contingency fee of one-third of any recovery. After Rubens's sudden death in 2008, attorney Timothy Dudley continued the representation with House's consent. The case resulted in a significant jury award, leading to disputes over the attorney's fees and the enforceability of the oral agreement.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the oral contingency-fee agreement was enforceable under Arkansas law and whether the law firm abandoned its representation of the client after Rubens's death.

The main legal issues were whether the oral contingency-fee agreement was enforceable under Arkansas law and whether the law firm abandoned its representation of the client after Rubens's death.

Rule

The court applied the principle that oral contingency-fee agreements can be enforceable under certain circumstances, particularly when the terms are undisputed and the parties had a long-standing relationship.

The court applied the principle that oral contingency-fee agreements can be enforceable under certain circumstances, particularly when the terms are undisputed and the parties had a long-standing relationship.

Analysis

The court found that the oral agreement was enforceable based on the established relationship between Rubens and House, as well as the lack of dispute over the agreement's terms. The court also determined that the representation continued through Dudley, who was part of a joint venture with Rubens, thus precluding the termination of the agreement upon Rubens's death.

The court found that the oral agreement was enforceable based on the established relationship between Rubens and House, as well as the lack of dispute over the agreement's terms. The court also determined that the representation continued through Dudley, who was part of a joint venture with Rubens, thus precluding the termination of the agreement upon Rubens's death.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the oral contingency-fee agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the law firm was entitled to the fees as agreed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the oral contingency-fee agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the law firm was entitled to the fees as agreed.

Who won?

Rieves, Rubens and Mayton prevailed in the case because the court upheld the enforceability of the oral contingency-fee agreement and found that the representation continued despite the death of Rubens.

Rieves, Rubens and Mayton prevailed in the case because the court upheld the enforceability of the oral contingency-fee agreement and found that the representation continued despite the death of Rubens.

You must be