Opinion ID: 515110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration for the Contingent Fee Agreement

Text: 18 The Wolfs also challenge the award of attorney's fees on the ground that Sonn was already under a contractual duty to pursue the entire claim of the bonding company and the Wolfs on an hourly basis. The Wolfs contend that Sonn did not give any consideration for the estate's promise to pay an additional contingent fee for work he [Sonn] had already been hired to perform. The record does not support this contention. The affidavits filed in support of the award of attorney's fees show that, at the time Sonn was employed by the trustee, the Wolfs' claim against the contractor, Voth Brothers Construction (Voth), appeared to be difficult to prove. A substantial question existed whether there would be any recovery in excess of the amount owed to U.P. The trustee asked the Wolfs' attorney to pursue their claim against Voth. Counsel for the Wolfs declined to do so because recovery of any significant amount of money appeared doubtful. Additional investigation and preparation was required to prove the Wolfs' separate claim against Voth. 19 Originally, Voth's counsel offered to settle all claims for $30,000. Sonn was instructed to demand $90,000 so that the Wolfs would recover something. This demand was refused. The judgment after trial was approximately $300,000. Later, Voth agreed to settle for $270,000. The significance of the amount recovered for the estate through Sonn's efforts becomes clear when we consider the fact that the Wolfs' attorney had earlier offered to settle all back charges owed by Voth for $12,714.23. 20 Without the award of damages against Voth, the estate would have been without funds to pay the creditors. As a result of Sonn's success, all the creditors were paid, and the Wolfs received a significant amount of money, as well. 21 The record supports the bankruptcy court's implied finding that Sonn performed services for the estate which were above and beyond his duty to represent U.P. against Voth. The bankruptcy court's determination that Sonn was entitled to additional fees was not clearly erroneous.