Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
I have a retainer agreement on a 50/50 contingency basis in a real estate case against someone who fraudulently transferred title of my house to his name. The retainer agreement reads: "RE:Real property located at xxxx street, Los Angeles, California. I have agreed to represent you in connection with the above referenced property..."Defendant filed a counter suit for quiet title and damages which is what we had filed against him. Now my attorney is asking for money to respond or defend the cross-complaint. I have refused on the grounds that the retainer agreement covers any matter related to the "above referenced property" but he insists that the cross-complaint is not covered under the retainer agreement even though there is no exclusion language contained in the retainer. Is he right?
2 Answers from Attorneys
An attorney would have to review the entire retainer agreement before they could offer you an opinion on that.
Of course he is right in requiring a new 'deal', including payment for the defense of a new and different lawsuit. I am quite confident that, despite what you argue, your retainer almost certainly covers only your plaintiff suit, not the new one in which you are a defendant. My own Retainer Agreements are quite clear on this issue, to avoid such arguments. I suggest you negotiate a reasonable deal with him that you both can live with. Otherwise you'll probably have to hire new counsel, who will also require payment for the defense side. You should at this point also be seriously discussing settling the entire matter and assessing your risks and costs in pursuing it, now that you have to pay money out of pocket.
If you need to hire new counsel, feel free to contact me.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
