Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador & Associates v. Medler

Citation1983 OK CIV APP 11,663 P.2d 388
Decision Date15 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 57511,No. 2,57511,2
Parties1983 OK CIV APP 11 CRISP, COURTEMANCHE, MEADOR & ASSOCIATES, a partnership, Appellee, v. Elma MEDLER, Appellant
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Appeal from the District Court, Oklahoma County; Homer Smith, Trial judge.

Action brought to recover on open account. Debtor appeals from order sustaining motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Elma Medler, pro se.

Kevin Blaney and Lisa Rabin McKenzie Eagleton, Nicholson, Jones & Blaney Oklahoma City, for appellee.

BOYDSTON, Judge.

Client Elma Medler appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador and Associates, a court reporter partnership (Reporter) for services rendered in preparing a transcript. Medler appeals on the sole ground that the case was not ripe for summary judgment. Based on our review of the record, we disagree with Medler and affirm the decision below.

When summary judgment has been granted, the appellate court is required to examine the pleadings and evidentiary materials. If the record discloses either controverted material facts or if the uncontroverted facts support legitimate inferences favoring the well-pled theory of the party against whom the judgment is granted, the judgment will be reversed. Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Okl., 529 P.2d 489 (1974); Runyon v. Reid, Okl., 510 P.2d 943 (1973); District Court Rule 13, 12 O.S.1981, Ch. 2, App. 1

The operative facts in this appeal are not in serious dispute. Mr. Larry Turner and Ms. Medler, his mother, were convicted of a crime in federal court. Their trial attorney withdrew from the case, and they then hired Robert Pittman (Attorney) to lodge the appeal. There is some dispute as to whether Attorney filed an appeal for both parties or just one of them. However, it is clear that the parties had a community of interest as mother and son, codefendants and parties with a vital interest in the outcome of the appeal. The record shows it was decided to appeal only Turner's conviction because of the similarity of grounds for reversal; i.e., reversal of one would amount to reversal of the other. Medler paid the initial $1,000 deposit to Attorney who then paid it to Reporter. The final bill was $2,816, which was never paid and forms the basis for this suit.

The evidence in this case includes: (1) motions for summary judgment, (2) affidavits, (3) interrogatories, (4) Attorney's deposition, and (5) other documents including a form from the federal criminal case file that declared Attorney was the attorney of record for both clients.

In affidavits and answers to interrogatories, Ms. Medler first admitted that Attorney had represented her at the critical time, but later denied it. To put it simply, Medler's defense was that by ordering the entire transcript Attorney had exceeded his authority, because it had been agreed the testimony of a single witness was the only part of the transcript necessary for appeal.

Reporter offered evidence that Attorney represented Medler at the time the transcript was designated and that they had performed the work for which payment was refused. This proof was substantiated by Attorney's deposition in which he denied exceeding his authority.

First we observe that the attorney client relationship is one of agency. See Moran v. Loeffler-Greene Supply Co., Okl., 316 P.2d 132 (1957). As such, an attorney is empowered with real and apparent authority to bind a client within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sherrel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 20253–04.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 1 Noviembre 2007
    ...L.Ed.2d 859 (2005); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1242, 1253 (Okla.2000); Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador & Associates v. Medler, 663 P.2d 388, 390 (Okla.Civ.App.1983). Generally, an agency relationship is one in which the parties agree that one party is to act on behalf......
  • Hays v. Monticello Retirement Estates
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 23 Julio 2008
    ...settle the matter because, as her agent, he had apparent authority to bind her. They rely primarily on Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador & Associates v. Medler, 1983 OK CIV APP 11, 663 P.2d 388. ¶ 12 In Crisp, a court reporting business sued a litigant for the cost of a transcript. The litigant's......
  • Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 129 T.C. No. 16 (U.S.T.C. 11/1/2007)
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 1 Noviembre 2007
    ...436-437 (2005); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1242, 1253 (Okla. 2000); Crisp, Courtemanche, Meador & Associates v. Medler, 663 P.2d 388, 390 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983). Generally, an agency relationship is one in which the parties agree that one party is to act on behalf......
  • First Sec. Bank of Utah, NA v. Felger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 9 Abril 1987
    ...was a conditional one by asserting that their agents failed to carry out their instructions. See, e.g., Crisp, Courtemanche Meador & Associates v. Medler, 663 P.2d 388 (Okla.App.1983) (Undisclosed limitation privately agreed upon between attorney and client is not binding upon a third party......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT