Mortgage Investors v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Dissent
*511 Levine, J.,
dissenting:
The majority concludes today that even if an attorney’s fee of over $105,000 is unreasonable in this note collection case, the Court will not exercise its power to lower that fee to a reasonable level absent a clear showing of overreaching. Since I believe the Court does possess such power and should exercise it here, I dissent.
The Court tacitly concludes that a contract provision providing for an attorney’s fee should be treated in the same manner as any other provision in a contract; for example, an attorney’s fee provision is void only if there is clear evidence of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kuper v. SchmidtTexas Supreme Court · 1960
- Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Fellner v. Bar Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Webster v. People's Loan, Savings & Deposit BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
- Johnson v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.