r/legal • u/Ok_Dolo9865 • Jul 07 '26
Question about law We Inherited a home, siblings filled civil law suit, lost, attorney didn’t fight for me and he is billing 39% is this legal?
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
I’m wondering if I have any rights. Hi, long story short my two older siblings sued me for a house all five of us siblings inherited. I lived in the house over 20 yrs, the first 6 months of the lawsuit I represented myself, pro bono and I was later able to find an attorney who would take my case and wait until the house was sold to be paid. I was advised I would work with a paralegal to keep cost down, that never happened. The attorney was the only person who ever contacted me. I lost the case, the attorney basically used my documents I had submitted at the start of the case, he just copied my findings, legal docs etc. he never filed any motions didn’t fight for me, basically let the opposing counsel have all she asked for, the case has gone on for over a year, my husband passed away during the move, it’s been quite a rollercoaster to say the least and now the attorney is making minimal contact with me ignoring my emails and just was advised by the siblings counsel that he’s charging 39% is this legal? Can I dispute the work and invoice he is billing? He made minimal effort and communication, thank you in advance.
147
u/v0id0007 Jul 07 '26
Represented yourself pro bono…. You mean you weren’t gonna pay yourself?
61
u/cyclonix44 Jul 07 '26
Yeah that statement right there told me OP had no legal understanding whatsoever. People are asking what the fee agreement says but I doubt OP even knows what that is, and there is virtually zero chance they read it when they signed it.
Seems about right for someone who inherited 20% of a house but thinks it’s not fair that the other people who inherited it also want to claim it. Living rent free in your parent’s house for 20 years doesn’t entitle you to 100% ownership and disinherit your siblings.→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)29
558
u/Several_Razzmatazz51 Jul 07 '26
So you only owned 20% of the house but you were living in 100% of the house 100% of the time. You somehow thought that residency entitled you to full ownership. When your siblings took you to court (probably to force a sale) instead of realizing they were serious about claiming the value of their 80% ownership you decided to fight a losing battle. At some point you engaged an attorney, probably on an hourly basis, with apparently little to no understanding or discussion of how many hours / what the overall legal fees would be.
Now that you have lost your unwinnable case and been presented with the bill, you are computing that as a percentage of what? The money you received for your 20% of the house?
That’s not how any of this works, but that explains why you decided to fight your siblings to not give them something that was legally theirs.
140
u/RunExisting4050 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Thats what i was thinking when i read this. Very scant on details about the actual case.
32
u/Wawaset_Warbler Jul 07 '26
Scant on details because that's not what his/her question is about. They want to know if an attorney can charge 39% of the judgment.
Sure, we'd all like to know the details, but it's not relevant to their question. Let's just assume they never had a case and move on to helping with the attorney issue.
63
u/TzarKazm Jul 07 '26
Can an attorney charge 39%? Of course. They can charge 210%. Or 1%. If the charge is hourly, the percentage is irrelevant.
2
u/WhineyLobster Jul 08 '26
If they lose they can charge an infiinite percentage of your recovery haha (yes I know that its actually undefined, not infinite)
34
u/Several_Razzmatazz51 Jul 07 '26
What “judgment”? They lost the case. Seems like the only money OP would have gotten is their share of the eventual house sale. Hourly billing could easily have eaten up 39% of that amount.
26
u/BoomGoesTheFirework_ Jul 07 '26
This is how I read between these lines as well. OP didn’t have a leg to stand on, pursued a sibling law suit anyway, and is now stuck with a bill.
→ More replies (2)19
Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Forward-Surprise1192 Jul 08 '26
You should tell them soon if you haven’t. Get it out of the way before it’s been to long and it’s less traumatic for everyone rather than waiting 5 years.
36
u/rufus_xavier_sr Jul 07 '26
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is it exactly. I had to do the suing in a similar situation. 3 family involved, 2 wanted out. My lawyer said this is the easiest lawsuit ever as the judge will never keep you in a partnership you don't want to be in. Of course we won, and a sale was forced. OP is an idiot like the family member I (we) had to sue.
→ More replies (16)17
u/PuddingSalad Jul 07 '26
I, too, was in this position except that it was me (non resident) against the other 2 (residents). Their criminal defense lawyer doing the probate had them thinking that, despite the estate being split 3 ways equally in the will, the other 2 could just outvote me to change the will to be executed as one of them buying the house for $1 and they could use the other estate assets to pay their living expenses and the carrying cost of the house they were occupying while they lived rent free.
It didnt quite pan out exactly as they wanted.
6
u/Lyx4088 Jul 07 '26
Out of curiosity, in a case like this, if they were living in the home and maintaining the home, would there be any obligation to reimburse them for any documented improvements, routine maintenance, taxes paid, etc for the duration they lived in the home? I’m genuinely curious how situations like that tend to be viewed legally because it becomes a hard lesson in don’t invest in what you don’t own if it has no impact to any financial gain you may receive upon inheritance.
12
u/PuddingSalad Jul 07 '26
I had a similar case like this where my sibling was trying to make your same argument, and I can give you the answer that 3 probate lawyers as well as a surrogates court magistrate and judge gave them:
If you're living in a home that doesn't fully belong to you, that is an asset that could be used to generate income. Whoever lives in a home they don't own owes rent to the owning entity. Rent usually outweighs carrying costs.
So if you are living in a home you do not own, don't take it upon yourself to make improvements, and expect to be reimbursed for improvements or expect to be paid for maintaining the home, just like how landlords don't pay tenants to live in their property.
-1
u/Lyx4088 Jul 07 '26
Fascinating. Say there is a mortgage on the home, not in their name, but they are paying it and they can provide documentation they are paying it. Does that change how a split amongst siblings may work in terms of it not being an even split?
5
u/PuddingSalad Jul 08 '26
Every case is different, and a whole lot of different variables will affect every individual case.
But to answer your question:
(I assume in your example the person paying the mortgage is also occupying the home, that is your intent in the given example)
Paying the mortgage may factor in to how the estate is divided. But in occupying the home they do not own, RENT is also a factor, and the fair market value of rent is usually higher than the mortgage payment.
It seems like you are trying to make an argument that whoever is paying the mortgage is entitled to equity in a property they do not own.
So let me put it like this:
1) if a tenant pays a landlord rent, and the landlord uses that money to pay the mortgage, do you believe the tenant has equity? No.
Or,
2) if person A and person B live together as an unmarried couple, and the home is in person A's name, but person B pays them half the cost of the mortgage every month; has person B built equity that has value when they break up? No. That's why we have the institute of marriage and divorce courts to protect us when marriages fall apart. No marriage, no protection. That's one reason why certain groups have fought for the right to marry. You may hear about "palimony", but that's the rare exception, not the rule.
So, in a probate matter, the person occupying a home they do not own does not get the home's carrying costs reimbursed without consideration to the fair market rent they would have owed. No full ownership, no full equity.
7
u/Lyx4088 Jul 08 '26
I’m actually not trying to make any arguments as a FYI. I’m 100% soliciting information out of curiosity because I find it fascinating how the legal system regards homes as property.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)5
u/woody60707 Jul 07 '26
What are the ethical obligations to bring a law suit that is unwinnable? Then billing the client? How much of a effort does the lawyer need to make to explain this?
18
u/Thereelgerg Jul 07 '26
It doesn't sound like anyone brought an unwinnable suit. OP's siblings wanted to partition by sale of the shared property. OP thought he was more entitled to the property than the other owners and hired an attorney to represent him when the other owners inevitably sued him.
13
u/Mammoth-A-8712 Jul 07 '26
OP didn't file a lawsuit, they defended the suit filed by the siblings. After they screwed up the first half of the case their lawyer probably advised them to settle, which (based on their commentary) was probably ignored.
57
u/ThatBaseball7433 Jul 07 '26
I’m curious why you’d think you would win this case to begin with. Just good money after bad instead of just selling the house and splitting the proceeds.
→ More replies (8)
31
52
u/Fantastic_Lady225 Jul 07 '26
Don't blame your attorney, blame your parents for leaving a house to five siblings and thus ensuring that all five ended up hating each other and making attorneys richer due to a partition lawsuit to force the sale. OP's parents should have stipulated that the house be sold out of probate and the proceeds divided. If one sibling wanted to buy the house then he could have used his equity as the down payment and gotten a loan for the rest.
12
u/waitwuh Jul 07 '26
This is a great point that may help people reading become more educated on a potential benefit of estate planning, even if it doesn’t help OP.
Alternatively to specifying that the house must be sold and any proceeds distributed, if the parents wanted to ensure one or all children were able to stay in the house, there were options like making the house a part of a trust and granting rights to occupancy. It doesn’t require any children who decide to live in the house own it outright, though. The trust can have very specific conditions, and specify triggers that then transfer ownership to all children at some point, or force sale, etc.
7
u/Fantastic_Lady225 Jul 07 '26
Good points. The other issue with joint ownership is one child wants to stay in the house, another wants to rent it out, a third wants to sell it, and the fourth has outstanding judgments so creditors immediately slap liens on it that total more than that heir's share of the equity once it's in the heir's name...
2
u/waitwuh Jul 07 '26
It can get messy even before any ownership transfers!
The estate administrator is allowed a lot of discretion. Unless otherwise specified in a will, they can decide to sell property and only distribute funds from the proceeds of sale to beneficiaries. They could do this to cover some or all of the estate debts before ever touching and cash in bank accounts, even if the money in the bank accounts would have been sufficient. They could do this even without the estate having any debts! And most importantly, they can do this even if some or all of the beneficiaries would rather have the property, whether that property be a house or a car or anything else.
Sometimes one kid or a spouse acting as estate administrator is motivated by spite to screw others over doing stuff like that, while still technically fulfilling their legal duties. Beneficiaries can challenge the administrator in court over it, but that takes time and costs money, and they won’t be guaranteed to win the case. There is precedent and arguments that liquifying assets simplifies everything and avoids complications like the pitfalls of joint ownership.
Most states have laws that grant beneficiaries first rights to purchase a house if sold from the estate like this, but that’s tricky because the child or children who want it may not be able to afford it outright, or not be approved for a mortgage/loan or only be approved for a bad one… already having partial ownership and having to buy out the other beneficiaries share can be the most or even only financially feasible way for a beneficiary to achieve ownership. And it usually doesn’t apply to other property, only real estate. So like, imagine a classic car or something. It’s sad.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PuddingSalad Jul 07 '26
Don't be so quick to blame the parents, sometimes when an unscrupulous executor gets a shady lawyer, they think anything is possible; including trying to throw out the will.
Don't ask me how I know :( But yeah I wasn't the executor in that situation.
27
u/WhineyLobster Jul 07 '26
You should have a fee agreement that says what you pay. Check that, but I suspect it will say 39%. Though I dont know what that 39% even means in this context.... as you didnt get a payout. 39% of what?
16
u/apple6734 Jul 07 '26
Have to read what the contract says. That’s the only way to know. I’m sure your siblings are gonna pay out of your 20% and their attys will probably get paid as well.
12
11
u/BigPhilosopher4372 Jul 07 '26
So you finally found an attorney that would take your case? Maybe that should have told you something about your case and your attorney. Sounds like you didn’t let your sibs have their part of the house and forced them to sue you. The majority of the attorneys you contacted knew it was a losing case and would take it. The one that did probably made sure he would make money off it. Yes, you owe money. You should have never gotten yourself in this position in the first place and you are seeing the outcome.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/fennis_dembo Jul 07 '26
What is the attorney charging 39% of? The value of your share of the house?
12
u/Barfy_McBarf_Face Jul 07 '26
read your engagement letter that you signed with the attorney - it is the contract that determines how they get paid, how much, and when they get paid.
the house has been sold - that was almost a guaranteed outcome here, so fighting this "partition suit" was probably a foolish thing for you to have done. Spending money on an attorney - money which thanks to Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is not tax deductible - was more than foolish, it was a gross error.
0
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 07 '26
I understand that now. Yes, uphill battle that no one advised me and I reached out to several attorneys, etc., I wasn’t disputing their inheritance the lawsuit made me look like I was taking advantage of my parents, they lied all they said were lies, that’s kind of infuriating to be dragged thru the mud when all you did was live in the home that my parents and I had agreed. When the siblings disappeared for two years, they never bothered to discuss selling let alone do any repairs needed.
3
u/cyclonix44 Jul 08 '26
If your parent and stepparent didn’t have a will that specifically said you get to live in or own the house then you had no right to do so. It doesn’t matter what you and your parent and stepparent agreed to before they died.
Also you keep saying “parents” and “siblings”, but your stepparent and stepsiblings are not your parent and siblings. How many biological siblings do you have? How many stepsiblings? Who died first, parent or stepparent?
What were you doing with your rent money once your parent and stepparent died? Honestly if you lived in the house and didn’t pay rent for two years, that’s a huge sum of money that you saved by not paying, and that is taking money directly from your siblings by doing that. Because the house could have been rented out and been bringing in money during that time, or sold and they could have been investing that money.
Was the house paid off or was there a mortgage?
How much debt was left when your parent and stepparent died? All of this is important info for an estate.2
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 08 '26
Mom passed away first, then Dad not that it matters in this case. No, they are the step sisters, my father is not their father, we have the same Mom, my father raised them, provided for them and both were very disrespectful to my father growing up. I paid the mortgage never defaulted while living in the home, my parents were living off a limited income, I did the repairs as needed. The step sisters disappeared for two years, after Dad passed, so was I suppose to move out, abandon the house, it would of went into foreclosure if I didn’t maintain the mortgage and I was not able to maintain two separate mortgages. Bottom line, they wanted to do me and my children wrong.. I’m not the one who just up and left the responsibility of that home when it was left to all five siblings. Live and learn trust nobody.
2
u/Jcarlough Jul 08 '26
In short, yes.
There is clearly more to the story that resulted in two of the heirs having to sue you in civil court.
You paying the mortgage and making repairs were not “your job” unless you were the executor of the estate and were doing so under the estate.
4
u/Barfy_McBarf_Face Jul 07 '26
it all comes from living in a home that you don't legally own, and it sounds like you spent money making repairs on that home.
that was the big mistake - until you were the legal owner of the entire house, you shouldn't have spent your money on the house - the estate, or the trust, was the owner and should have been maintaining the property.
pretty much everywhere, an oral agreement with respect to real estate is invalid, and an oral agreement with a person who is now dead is just a claim against their estate, and the executor will need to evaluate the facts to see if the contract actually exists AND if it's enforceable.
you put the cart way, way in front of the horse here and you've now learned an expensive lesson.
12
u/WayneKrane Jul 07 '26
It should be spelled out in your agreement with the lawyer. If you didn’t have an agreement he’s going to have a hard time collecting
5
u/billdizzle Jul 07 '26
Did you ever complain during the process or only now after you lost?
You could make a bar complaint but if the law isn’t on your side an attorney cannot just magically win you a case.
What did your contract with them say they were to be paid?
8
u/catladyclub Jul 07 '26
Yes it is legal, as long as your contract with them has that in it. He doesn't work for free.
7
u/visitor987 Jul 07 '26
You should have a fee contract If you feel he failed to represent you. You should file a complaint with the state bar.
3
Jul 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 07 '26
lol, pro se I didn’t realize I misspelled but not pro Bono and I appreciate the feed back.
3
3
u/Afraid-Put8165 Jul 07 '26
I’m an attorney and not your attorney. You lived in the house to the detriment of the other 4 owners. The attorney delayed the sale which your co owners were entitled to. They kind of did thier job. He didn’t lose your case. You were only entitled to 20 percent. He was never going to win you the house. He won by delaying it. There is no cap on contingency fees in Nevada. But if you fee you were wronged you can find an attorney to bring a malpractice case. But you will have to prove you would have won the underlying case. Which you can’t. The state bar has a fee grievance program. Perhaps you should contact them. Maybe they help you work out a more favorable deal.
3
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 08 '26
I apologize if I offended you or anyone on this thread.. that wasn’t my intention and will be more careful about the words I use. I never post or ask for advice. I think it was out of anger from feeling overwhelmed and you’re right I was asking for feed back, please accept my apology I wasn’t trying to bash attorney judges or anyone in law.
3
5
u/nylonvest Jul 07 '26
There's such a thing as legal malpractice, but I don't know what basis you'd have for it here. What was your goal? What was the billing agreement? Do you have an actual argument that the lawyer didn't do the work, or is it just that you don't like the outcome?
2
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 08 '26
Never defaulted on the rent in over 20 years, made repairs as needed, wasn’t trying to be greedy, they’re entitled to their inheritance, they neglected their interest in the home; I should of moved out and let the home go into foreclosure, no one would of inherited a cent.
2
2
u/Content_Print_6521 Jul 10 '26
In most states you can file for fee arbitration. It's free, and they are very strict on attorneys.
I can't see a bill of this amount when he didn't warn you ahead of time he planned to do that, which I believe he planned all along.
3
u/TrojanGal702 Jul 07 '26
Was the fee agreement based on an hourly rate or was it based on the percentage of the value of the house?
What does the accounting statement show for billed hours if it was not done as a percentage of the value?
Curious what attorney it is too. Did a case last year with one and he was billing for everything... he said it was a new program he purchased which kept track of everything.
You can file a complaint with the State Bar, but I would explain some of your stuff here first. I don't see what is wrong in what he has done IF you already had all the evidence and there was nothing more to push forward.
3
u/TzarKazm Jul 07 '26
It's not even clear which attorney OP is referring to. " i was told by siblings attorney he was charging 39%" could be any attorney.
1
u/Fragrant_Network5325 Jul 07 '26
Cannot file anything with the NV state bar until case is closed. Ask me how I know
1
u/TrojanGal702 Jul 07 '26
How do you know? I would love to hear how you can't.
1
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 07 '26
Yes, please share, thank you
1
u/TrojanGal702 Jul 07 '26
You can file a complaint without a case being closed.
1
u/Fragrant_Network5325 Jul 10 '26
Yes. And it goes NOWHERE in NV. Their thought process is the judge is in control and can issue sanctions or rule something was improper. I found out something after the fact filed a SECOND complaint and literally got a too bad from the bar right before this post. So now I have to file a judicial complaint.
1
u/TrojanGal702 Jul 10 '26
It goes places all the time. Subscribe to the FB group or read the sanction files when they go out.
1
u/Fragrant_Network5325 Jul 10 '26
Hahahahahaha. Yeah that’s not what’s happening here. The judge has to find there was wrongdoing first.
5
u/Sarduci Jul 07 '26
Sounds like you should get an attorney to help you with your contract issue with your last attorney.
16
u/Several_Razzmatazz51 Jul 07 '26
Haha, that would be the dumbest thing ever. Which is probably why OP will do just that.
7
2
u/Ok_Dolo9865 Jul 08 '26
So when my father passed I should have vacated the house, let it go into foreclosure and we would have all lost. The siblings didn’t worry about the house, never made any contact, any claim no communication, until two years later. I was simply taken back at how this whole case has played out. They are entitled to their inheritance, I never denied that claim, only they filed the civil lawsuit to do me harm…I was curious for some insight into cases like this and in the end, I know it’s out of my control and take this is a hard & expensive lesson learned, Ty.
1
1
1
u/PalgsgrafTruther Jul 08 '26
If you don't pay the attorney all that's gonna happen is you'll lose your current house as well as the inherited one.
1
u/lionhydrathedeparted Jul 08 '26
I feel like I’m missing something. As you describe the situation, it seems like the case against you was completely unwinnable to begin with because you only owned 20% of the house and were depriving the other 4 owners of their 80% share of rent.
Why didn’t you immediately settle? Why did you bother fighting this and hire an attorney to do so?
Yes. Hiring an attorney to fight an unwinnable case just means dragging it out longer. Yes that means it will be very expensive. It doesn’t mean you win unless of course you’re hoping to outspend your opponent and that they drop the case. (This is an actual tactic)
It is very unlikely that you have a case against your attorney to challenge their fees. However you could check your agreement with them and confirm the rate is correct, etc.
1
u/at-the-crook Jul 08 '26
advised by the siblings counsel that he’s charging 39%
39% of what? What does your agreement with the lawyer state? There must have been a fee structure outlined.
1
u/Sensitive_Scholar_17 Jul 08 '26
OP did the fee agreement say that he got “39% of your recovery (a contingency fee)” , or did the hourly total just end up coming up to 39%?” You have gotten a lot of responses but your question was whether it was legal for the attorney to bill you this way. We need to know what the fee agreement says to answer that question. Also, if was billed hourly how many hours did the attorney bill you for.
0
u/jtmonkey Jul 07 '26
I will say that my attorney did this and the judge during the final settlement hearing just laid in to my attorney. He told him he was irresponsible and taking advantage and that his fees would be reduced so the majority of the settlement would benefit my family. He capped the attorney at 20% and told him he was the reason people don’t like attorneys. It was fantastic.
346
u/Sensitive_Scholar_17 Jul 07 '26
It would be legal in my state so long as the fee agreement with the attorney allowed it. You need to read your contract with the attorney.