Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mortgage Investors v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 23, 1976No. [No. 16, September Term, 1976.]Published

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

  1. Kuper v. SchmidtTexas Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Fellner v. Bar Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
  4. Webster v. People's Loan, Savings & Deposit BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
  5. Johnson v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1923

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API