Guess v. Parrott
Decision Date | 16 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. COA02-1071.,COA02-1071. |
Citation | 160 NC App. 325,585 S.E.2d 464 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Johnny Robert GUESS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Terry Anthony PARROTT, Bridget Christina Parrott, d/b/a Parrott Trucking, Defendants. |
Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates, by Lloyd T. Kelso, Gastonia, for the firm of Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates and for plaintiff, appellants.
Melrose, Seago & Lay, P.A., by Randal Seago, Sylva, for the firm of Melrose, Seago & Lay, P.A., appellees.
This appeal arises out of a dispute between attorneys for the firms of appellant Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates and appellee Melrose, Seago & Lay, P.A., as to entitlement to attorneys' fees stemming from the underlying case. The underlying case involved an automobile accident that occurred on 24 July 1999 in which plaintiff Johnny Robert Guess, Jr., was injured when his vehicle collided with a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Terry Anthony Parrott.
Shortly after the accident, plaintiff's father and brother, on 26 July 1999, contacted the appellee law firm of Melrose, Seago & Lay, P.A., and made arrangements with Randal Seago to represent plaintiff. On 29 July 1999, plaintiff and Randal Seago entered into a contingency fee agreement in which plaintiff promised to pay appellee one-third of any recovery. Further, plaintiff would reimburse appellee for expenses and costs advanced by it.
Mr. Seago went about the task of representing plaintiff. He filed a complaint on 6 January 2000. The parties negotiated at mediation, asking for $750,000.00. A settlement could not be reached as defendants would not go above $200,000.00. Plaintiff would not lower his demand under $650,000.00. Therefore, this matter went to trial on 29 January 2001. During the trial, a "high/low agreement" was made by the parties that guaranteed plaintiff $250,000.00, plus $15,000.00 for costs, regardless of the outcome, but capped recovery at $800,000.00. Defendants increased their offer to $350,000.00, but it was not accepted. The trial ended deadlocked at 10-2 in favor of defendants, and a mistrial was declared.
Following the unsuccessful trial, Seago and other attorneys at appellee law firm were involved in negotiations with their client, plaintiff, and defendants. Plaintiff made a settlement offer of $500,000.00, while defendants were willing to settle for $265,000.00. Both offers were rejected by the respective parties.
Plaintiff became dissatisfied with the representation provided to him by appellee law firm and informed them of such. Acceding to plaintiff's wishes, appellee filed a motion to withdraw on 23 April 2001. An order granting such was entered on 20 April 2001.
Thereafter, plaintiff secured the services of appellant Lloyd Kelso of Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates. Plaintiff entered into a contingency fee agreement with Kelso, promising to pay 35% of the amount recovered. Once retained, Kelso reviewed plaintiff's file that he had brought over from appellee. Kelso developed a strategy and hired several new experts. Kelso also revisited witnesses, including some who did not testify in the previous trial.
By September 2001, Kelso approached defendants about settlement. Kelso made a new request on behalf of plaintiff in the amount of $1,286,421.30. On 14 January 2002, a hearing was held as to the validity of the "high/low agreement" from the first trial and the issue of apportioning attorneys' fees between plaintiff's attorneys. The parties were ordered into mediation and eventually settled plaintiff's case for $525,000.00 on 22 January 2002. This amount was able to be procured, appellant contends, largely because of its work on the case. Further, appellant contends that had the "high/low agreement" not been in effect, the recovery could have been more. Either way, this amount was in excess of what plaintiff was offered during appellee's representation of plaintiff. The attorneys' fees issue was not resolved in mediation.
On 4 February 2002, appellee filed a motion requesting a portion of the attorneys' fees in the case. Appellant filed its motion in opposition on 15 February 2002, requesting a jury trial on the issue of the reasonable value of appellee's services. A hearing was held during the 25 February 2002 Mixed Session of Cleveland County Superior Court on 28 February 2002 before The Honorable Richard D. Boner as to whether a jury trial should be had. It was determined that the trial court would conduct a bench trial on the attorneys' fees issue during the 26 March 2002 Civil Session of Gaston County Superior Court before the same judge.
As to appellant's time in the case, the trial court found that it had "invested 332.02 hours of attorney and staff time in this case." The trial court then found that:
Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that:
Appellant was awarded the remaining funds from the generated fee, and both parties were awarded their costs. Appellant Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates appeal from this order.
Appellant makes several assignments of error and presents the following questions on appeal: Did the trial court commit reversible error (I) by denying its motion to dismiss appellee's motion to determine attorneys' fees; (II) by entering judgment after conducting the hearing without a jury after a request was made for such; (III) in finding that appellee was entitled to recover attorneys' fees of $86,500.00 pursuant to quantum meruit; and (IV) by abusing its discretion by awarding $86,500.00 as that amount was not supported by the evidence.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dismiss for several reasons, including that appellee failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We disagree.
Appellee's motion alleges that it provided valuable legal services to plaintiff pursuant to its contingency fee agreement. Subsequent to the agreement and services, appellee was unilaterally discharged by plaintiff. The case was settled afterward by another law firm, appellant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Wilson, No. COA05-729 (N.C. App. 7/18/2006)
-
Pritchett & Burch, PLLC v. Boyd
...viable claim in North Carolina in quantum meruit against the former client or its subsequent representative." Guess v. Parrott, 160 N.C.App. 325, 331, 585 S.E.2d 464, 468 (2003). A. Attorneys Defendants argue that plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney's fees under the theory of qua......
-
Robertson v. Steris Corp.
...the Clerk. Further, the trial court here followed the procedures this Court approved in a remarkably similar case, Guess v. Parrott, 160 N.C.App. 325, 585 S.E.2d 464 (2003). That appeal arose out of a dispute between attorneys for the firms of appellant Lloyd T. Kelso & Associates and appel......
-
Crumley & Assocs., P.C. v. Charles Peed & Assocs., P.A.
...Boyd, 169 N.C.App. 118, 124–25, 609 S.E.2d 439, 443,disc. review denied,359 N.C. 635, 616 S.E.2d 543 (2005); Guess v. Parrott, 160 N.C.App. 325, 331, 585 S.E.2d 464, 468 (2003). In the instant case, neither Crumley's quantum meruit claim nor the trial court's award were based upon the unenf......