Ifediba v. Staffney

• Decision Date: 26 March 2021
• Docket Number: 2190615
• Citation: 334 So.3d 1262
• Parties: Anthony IFEDIBA v. Melissa Renee STAFFNEY
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

334 So.3d 1262

Anthony IFEDIBA

v.Melissa Renee STAFFNEY

2190615

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 26, 2021

Anthony Ifediba of Ifediba Law Group, P.C., Birmingham.

Kirby D. Farris and Jessica M. Zorn of Farris, Riley & Pitt, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Ifediba, an attorney, appeals from a judgment of the Bibb Circuit Court awarding an attorney's fee of $5,000 and expenses of $974.64 under a quantum meruit theory out of funds recovered by Melissa Renee Staffney, the custodial parent of a child (B.E.H., "the child") concerning whose death she and Robert Lee Hudson, Jr. (the child's father), had jointly brought a wrongful-death action against several defendants while represented by Ifediba, after which Staffney retained alternate counsel in lieu of Ifediba and successfully demonstrated that she was the sole party with standing to sue. We reverse and remand.

The fee dispute made the basis of this appeal stems from an action (case no. CV-14-900078) originally commenced in the trial court on September 24, 2014, by Ifediba on behalf of Staffney, who was identified in the complaint as mother of the child, and Hudson, who was identified as the personal representative of the child's estate. The complaint in that action, which was filed along with a first request for production of documents, asserted, in pertinent part, that the child had drowned at Brierfield Historical State Park during a birthday party because of the wrongful conduct of the public corporation that maintains the park and several workers employed at the park. Although the complaint was transmitted by certified mail to the four named defendants, none was actually served.

On October 17, 2014, attorneys from the law firm of Farris, Riley & Pitt, L.L.P., filed a notice of appearance in case no. CV-14-900078 on behalf of Staffney "as [m]other of" the child and moved for the dismissal of the wrongful-death action, averring that Staffney, who had had sole custody of the child at the time of the child's death, had the exclusive right to maintain a wrongful-death action as to the child under Miller v. Dismukes, 624 So. 2d 1038 (Ala. 1993), and that she had terminated Ifediba's representation of her; she sought leave to bring the wrongful-death action solely on her own behalf (which she did in a new case that was also commenced in the Bibb Circuit Court and that was assigned case no. CV-14-900087). Ifediba, on behalf of Hudson, filed a response in opposition to Staffney's motion to dismiss in case no. CV-14-900078 and took an adversarial stance against his former client, contending that Hudson had also been a custodial parent of the child at the time of his death. Staffney filed a reply to that response in which she demonstrated not only that Hudson had not lived with her and the child at the time of the child's death, but also that he had been the subject of a protection-from-abuse order entered in favor of Staffney in May 2014. The trial court, noting the adversarial filings by Staffney and Hudson, directed Staffney and Hudson to submit additional authority in case no. CV-14-900078 and stayed proceedings in case no. CV-14-900087, and Ifediba, representing Hudson's interests, filed a number of affidavits tending to impugn Staffney's right to maintain the wrongful-death action solely on her own behalf, which affidavits were themselves the subject of motions to strike and objections thereto.

The trial court ultimately dismissed case no. CV-14-900078 but declared that Ifediba had a lien against any recovery obtained by Staffney and retained jurisdiction to resolve his fee. The trial court, at Staffney's request, lifted its stay in case no. CV-14-900087, and the defendants answered the complaint in that action; Staffney's replacement counsel thereafter filed further pleadings and conducted discovery, which included interrogatories propounded to the defendants and depositions of the defendants. Ifediba moved to intervene in case no. CV-14-900087 to enforce the lien declared in case no. CV-14-900078, which motion the trial court granted, directing Ifediba to submit a fee bill. Ifediba filed in the trial court a copy of a notice of lien he had previously filed in the probate records in Jefferson County claiming $38,650 for claimed work and case expenses.

In May 2019, replacement counsel for Staffney and counsel for the defendants filed a joint stipulation for dismissal of the claims asserted by Staffney in case no. CV-14-900087. Ifediba moved to stay that dismissal, asserting that his fee claim remained outstanding. Ifediba and Staffney's replacement counsel appeared at a hearing in the trial court on March 11, 2020, at which Staffney's replacement counsel argued not only that the fees and expenses claimed by Ifediba incurred during his representation of Staffney through October 2014 were excessive, but also that no fees or expenses were properly awardable after that date. After that hearing, the parties filed proposed form orders for the trial court's consideration; perhaps because the proposed order supplied by replacement counsel for Staffney on March 17, 2020, had referred to evidentiary insufficiencies as to Ifediba's claim, Ifediba filed an evidentiary submission on March 25, 2020, in support of his fee and expense claim (which, by that point, had grown to over $60,000), which submission consisted of his own affidavit, his contract of representation, a supplemental and revised invoice, a summary of claimed case expenses, an affidavit of another attorney (Adedapo Tailuo Agbola), and a copy of the order entered in case no. CV-14-900078 recognizing his lien against any recovery. Notwithstanding that March 25, 2020, submission, the trial court rendered and entered an order on March 31, 2020, incorporating the proposed order submitted by Staffney's replacement counsel on March 17, 2020, which provided, in pertinent part:

"On July 23, 2014, ... Ifediba was retained by ... Hudson and ... Staffney to represent them for the death of their son, [B.E.H.]. Ifediba filed suit on behalf of [both plaintiffs] on September 24, 2014. On October 17, 2014, ... Staffney terminated her agreement with Mr. Ifediba and retained ... Farris, Riley and Pitt, LLP, to represent her.

"It is undisputed that ... Hudson[ ] was the non-custodial parent of the deceased and did not have standing to go forward with the lawsuit after October 17, [2014]. SeeMiller v. Dismukes, 624 So. 2d 1038 (Ala. 1993). As such, any hours claimed by Mr. Ifediba after that date are not subject to his quantum meruit claim.

"Mr. Ifediba has submitted ... a printout showing total hours of 235.59, with a requested billing rate of $250.00 per hour, the hourly rate [that] is reflected in his fee agreement with Mr. Hudson and Ms. Staffney. Addit[i]onally, Mr. Ifediba submitted expenses totaling $3,474.64. Collectively, these items total [over $60,000].¹ The [trial court] was provided with an attorney's lien filed by Mr. Ifediba dated June 12, 2017, with a claimed amount of $38,650.00 inclusive of fees and expenses. According to the printout provided by Mr. Ifediba, the last work he claims to have performed on the case for which he seeks compensation is July 1, 2015, well before the lien was filed. There has been no explanation offered ... by Mr. Ifediba in his filing or during the hearing for this inconsistency.

"Unfortunately, there have been no documents produced, such as source data, billing records or receipts, to support the hours claimed on the printout or the attorney's fee lien. Similarly, there have been no supporting documents for the expenses claimed. Additionally, there has been no[ ] sworn testimony in the form of an affidavit or testimony during the hearing in support of his claim. The only testimony provided comes in the form[ ] of an affidavit from Ms. Staffney contesting Mr. Ifediba's claimed fees and expenses. The law in Alabama is clear as to quantum meruit claims for lawyers who are discharged[;] a lawyer discharged is ‘entitled to be reasonably compensated only for services rendered before discharge.’ Hall v. Gunter, 157 Ala. 375, 47 So. 155 [(1908)]. This law was reaffirmed in Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, P.C. v. Hare[,] Wynn, Newell & Newton, 554 So. 2d 445 [(Ala. Civ. App. 1989)]. It is the burden of the asserting party to produce competent and admissible evidence to support his claim, that the charges alleged are ‘reasonable’ and were in fact performed ‘before discharge.’ While there is certainly evidence from which [the trial court] can infer some time and expense such as the filing of the lawsuit and the fee agreement between Mr. Ifediba and the [p]laintiffs, that evidence is limited.

"Based upon the foregoing the [trial court] finds that Mr. Ifediba is entitled to attorney[']s fees of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) and expenses [of] $974.64 (nine hundred and seventy four dollars and sixty-four cents) for a total of $5,974.64 to be paid in full ... within 30 days...."

The trial court's order adjudicated the last remaining claim in case no. CV-14-900087, thus giving rise to a final judgment (see, e.g., Faith Props., LLC v. First Com. Bank, 988 So. 2d 485, 491 (Ala. 2008) ). Ifediba filed a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., that was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., after Ifediba had already timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment (a practice that Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P., allows).

The right of Ifediba to any recovery as to his fee claim stems from the principle recognized by this court in Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, P.C. v. Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, 554 So. 2d 445 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), under which, notwithstanding the acknowledged power of a client, such as Staffney, to unilaterally revoke a retained attorney's authority to represent the client's interests in a legal proceeding, " ‘an attorney discharged without cause, or otherwise prevented from full performance, is entitled to be reasonably compensated...