Case ID: nev_91/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DONALD W. GILFILLAN, Appellant, v. MARY BERNICE PALMER, Respondent.
    No. 7586
    March 27, 1975
    533 P.2d 456
    
      Stewart & Horton, Ltd., and Raymond B. Little, of Reno, for Appellant.
    
      Sanford, Sanford, Fahrenkopf & Mousel and M. Craig Haase, of Reno, for Respondent.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this action by an attorney against his former client to recover attorney’s fees claimed to be due, the trial court found that all legal fees owing the attorney and his associated California counsel were paid by the client’s husband to California counsel pursuant to the terms of a property settlement agreement obligating the husband to pay such fees, and that the client’s obligation thereby was discharged. The record supports that finding.

Affirmed.