Court Opinion

ID: 9774420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:19:54.832469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:08.255719
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
The principal opinion holds that a verdict should be entered for defendant on Count I. Its basis for this holding is “that Passer's letter of June 10, 1966 did not fulfill the requirements of § 484.140 for a notice to defendant of the attorney’s lien because it failed to advise that he had a contingent fee contract for 50% of the recovery.” In so doing, the principal opinion ignores the ultimate and determinative fact on the question of notice: the repeated acknowledgment by U.S.F.&G. of Passer’s lien.
I respectfully dissent.