Johnson v. Gary L. Jester, P.C.
Decision Date | 05 May 2006 |
Docket Number | 2040799. |
Citation | 941 So.2d 307 |
Parties | Annette JOHNSON v. GARY L. JESTER, P.C., d/b/a Jester and Jenkins. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Michael L. Weathers, Florence, for appellant.
Patrick J. Thomas, Florence, for appellee.
The defendant Annette Johnson appeals a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff Gary L. Jester, P.C., d/b/a Jester and Jenkins ("Jester"). We reverse and remand.
On June 5, 2001, Jester, a law firm, sued Johnson. Jester alleged that Johnson had employed it to represent her in a grandparent-visitation proceeding and to perform other legal work related to her deceased daughter's estate and that Johnson owed Jester a total of $8,055.85 in unpaid fees. Jester sought recovery of the $8,055.85 pursuant to three theories: (1) breach of contract, (2) account stated, and (3) quantum meruit. Jester did not demand a jury trial.
In her answer, Johnson denied that she owed Jester any fees and asserted the affirmative defenses of setoff, payment, satisfaction, and the Statute of Frauds. Johnson demanded a jury trial.
In October 2004, Jester filed a summary-judgment motion, which the trial court denied on a procedural ground without addressing the merits of the motion. In January 2005, Jester filed an amended complaint in which it dismissed its claims alleging breach of contract and account stated and again alleged the same claim of quantum meruit it had alleged in its original complaint. That same day, Jester moved for a summary judgment on its quantum meruit claim. Jester also filed a motion to strike Johnson's demand for a jury trial on the ground that Johnson was not entitled to a jury trial on Jester's quantum meruit claim.
In response, Johnson filed a pleading in opposition to Jester's summary-judgment motion, moved the trial court to strike Jester's amended complaint, and filed a pleading in opposition to Jester's motion to strike Johnson's demand for a jury trial.
Jester supported its summary-judgment motion with, among other things, a copy of a check dated June 1, 2000, that Johnson had made payable to Jester; copies of the letters Jester had sent Johnson while it was representing her; copies of the bills Jester had sent Johnson while it was representing her; and the affidavit of Willson Jenkins ("Jenkins"), the Jester attorney who had dealt with Johnson. In pertinent part, Jenkins's affidavit stated:
Johnson opposed Jester's summary-judgment motion with her affidavit and the affidavit of a friend who had accompanied her to Jester's office on one occasion. In pertinent part, Johnson's affidavit stated:
The trial court held a hearing on all pending motions on February 10, 2005. Johnson argued that the trial court should strike Jester's amended complaint because Jester had not complied with Rule 15(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. Specifically, Johnson argued that, because Jester amended its complaint less than 42 days before the first trial setting, Rule 15(a) required that Jester first obtain leave of the trial court to file its amended complaint, a requirement that Jester had not met. Johnson also argued that Rule 41(a)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., prohibited Jester from unilaterally dismissing its breach-of-contract and account-stated claims so late in the proceedings.
With regard to the merits of the summary-judgment motion, Johnson argued, among other things, that her affidavit testimony established a genuine issue of material fact regarding one of the essential elements of Jester's quantum meruit claim. Specifically, she argued that Jester was required to prove, as an essential element of its quantum meruit claim, that Jester had a reasonable expectation that it would be paid more than a flat fee of $975.00 for its services and that Johnson's affidavit testimony to the effect that Jenkins had agreed to provide the legal services for a flat fee of $975.00 established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding that essential element.
On February 23, 2005, the trial court entered a judgment denying Johnson's motion to strike Jester's amended complaint and entering a summary judgment in favor of Jester on its quantum meruit claim. Explaining the trial court's rationale for entering a summary judgment in favor of Jester, the judgment, in pertinent part, stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramson v. Brittin
...favor of Dwonna Brittin. We affirm. The record, when viewed in a light most favorable to Ramson, the nonmovant, see Johnson v. Jester, 941 So.2d 307, 312 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), shows that Ramson occasionally would perform yard work for Brittin at her home to earn extra money. On August 15, 200......