Meisner Law Grp. PC v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n, 332815

CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam.
Citation321 Mich.App. 702,909 N.W.2d 890
Parties The MEISNER LAW GROUP PC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTON DOWNS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 332815,332815
Decision Date24 October 2017

321 Mich.App. 702
909 N.W.2d 890

The MEISNER LAW GROUP PC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 332815

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted September 12, 2017, at Detroit.
Decided October 24, 2017, 9:00 a.m.

The Meisner Law Group, PC (by Robert M. Meisner and Daniel P. Feinberg ) for plaintiff.

Secrest Wardle (by Sidney A. Klingler and John L. Weston ) for defendant.

Before: Beckering, P.J., and Markey and Riordan, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, the Meisner Law Group, PC, brought this action for attorney fees in circuit court, asserting that "[t]he amount in controversy exceeds $25,000." Plaintiff alleged three theories for relief: (1) quantum meruit or unjust enrichment under an unexecuted, proposed contingent-fee agreement, (2) breach of an existing written retainer contract, and (3) that defendant misrepresented that it would fairly compensate plaintiff for the work plaintiff would perform. The circuit court entered an order on February 24, 2016, granting defendant Weston Downs Condominium Association’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4). The court found that neither plaintiff’s complaint nor the evidence that plaintiff submitted created a question of fact that plaintiff’s claims might exceed $25,000. The circuit court also determined that plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, ruling that it would award defendant its attorney fees in an amount to be determined at a later hearing.1 The circuit court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff now appeals by right. We affirm.


On May 24, 2013, plaintiff and defendant entered into a general retention agreement (GRA), whereby defendant retained plaintiff as legal counsel to provide legal services within an hourly rate range for attorneys and within a lesser hourly rate range for the law firm’s other employees. The GRA provided that plaintiff would send defendant statements containing "[a]n itemized description of services rendered" and that defendant would pay the statements within 15 days of receiving them. The GRA further provided that defendant would be given 15 days of notice regarding any change in the hourly rates stated in the agreement and that "[e]xcept for the change in the hourly rates and flat fees, the terms and conditions of this retention agreement shall remain in effect, unless superseded by another fee agreement." The GRA contemplated that a separate agreement regarding fees might be required for work on a "major claim," providing:

The rates quoted in this letter are with respect to general work performed on behalf of the Association. Should a major claim in behalf of or against the Association arise, a separate fee agreement would be established.

On May 13, 2015, defendant sought plaintiff’s counsel regarding its concerns that the developer of the condominiums, Mondrian Properties Weston Downs, LLC,

909 N.W.2d 894

had sold or transferred the last three remaining condominium units to its three principal members, who intended to use the units as rental properties. Defendant sought to amend the association’s bylaws and other documents to limit or prevent rentals and to review potential claims defendant may have against the developer regarding ownership of the units and liability for association fees. Plaintiff provided advice regarding potential legal claims against the developer and drafted the necessary documents to amend the association’s bylaws. Defendant paid plaintiff’s invoices for these services under the GRA in the amount of $5,667.

Believing that the matters regarding the developer concerned a "major claim," plaintiff, through Robert Meisner, wrote an e-mail to defendant’s president on May 15, 2015, "enclosing a proposed fee agreement for consideration by the Board of Directors exclusively in regard to the Developer suit." This transmittal letter asked defendant’s board to review the proposal "at your earliest convenience and presuming it is satisfactory, please have it signed and return it to me together with the initial retainer so that we can begin obtaining experts and otherwise preparing the claim." A second letter of the same date that contained the proposed retainer agreement began by stating that "[t]his letter will serve to set forth this firm’s fee arrangement and proposal in connection with our representation of Weston Downs Condominium Association regarding the prosecution of a claim and/or commencement of a lawsuit against those persons or entities responsible...." The proposed retainer agreement specified hourly rates that were slightly less than those in the GRA and, in addition to the hourly rates, provided:

"the Association shall pay the following contingency fee with respect to the litigation: fifteen (15%) percent of the value of all ... benefits of any kind realized, paid to, and/or received by the Association ... whether by way of settlement, agreement, case evaluation award, arbitration award, judgment, alternative dispute resolution, or otherwise ....

The proposed retainer agreement also stated that "[i]f the contents of this Agreement are satisfactory to the Board of Directors, please have two (2) representatives authorized by the Board of Directors date and sign the Agreement on behalf of the Association in the spaces provided below as well as the representative claimant ...." The next paragraph of the proposed retainer agreement stated, "The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon a receipt of this signed agreement by the Board of Directors of the Association, and receipt of a retainer in the amount of $5,000." It is undisputed that defendant’s board never authorized the proposed agreement, authorized board members never signed the proposed agreement, and defendant never paid plaintiff the required $5,000 retainer.

In an e-mail exchange between defendant’s board member, Rick Bonus, and one of plaintiff’s attorneys, Dan Feinberg, on June 1, 2015, defendant posed nine additional legal questions concerning potential claims the Association may have against the developer. Feinberg responded with answers to the questions posed in an e-mail of June 4, 2015. It is undisputed that although defendant’s representatives repeatedly invited plaintiff to invoice defendant for these services so that they could be paid, plaintiff never did so. It is also undisputed that the work to prepare the June 4, 2015 e-mail was the last legal service plaintiff performed for defendant.

Through June and July 2015, representatives of plaintiff queried defendant’s representatives concerning the status of defendant’s

909 N.W.2d 895

intent regarding potential claims against the developer. Defendant’s representatives responded that the Board was still considering its options. Plaintiff responded in a letter of June 11, 2015 by its principal, Robert Meisner, stating that defendant had taken plaintiff’s valuable advice and proceeded on its own. Meisner noted that although defendant had not signed the proposed retainer agreement, plaintiff expected that it would be compensated for the "fair value" of its services. Meisner wrote an e-mail on August 7, 2015, to one of defendant’s board members requesting clarification of defendant’s position. Meisner stated that if he received no response within 7 days, he would assume that defendant no longer desired plaintiff’s services, and that plaintiff would "notify the developer that we retain an attorney’s lien on any [recovery and] ... we are entitled to the fair value of our services."

Defendant’s Board responded to the August 7, 2015 e-mail of Meisner an August 11, 2015 letter signed by all three Board members, which stated, in pertinent part: "[P]lease be advised that the Board of Directors is not contemplating any legal action at this time against the developer and therefore no longer wishes your firm to provide any future services. Furthermore, as you note in your email, the Association has no[t] signed [the] engagement letter with your firm with respect to any such litigation."

Plaintiff responded in an August 18, 2015, letter by Meisner to the Board’s president, Rose Ann Schmitt. Meisner expressed his shock at defendant’s "lack of good faith" and accused defendant’s Board of "using our work-product without our knowledge or consent to obtain substantial benefits for the Association." Meisner also "advised that unless you provide this firm with full disclosure as to what has transpired between the Association and the Developer since our email to the Board of June 4, 2015, we will have no choice but to not only file an attorney’s lien, but to institute litigation to seek the information through the discovery process...." Meisner also threatened that plaintiff would "consider proceeding against [Schmitt] personally for what I consider to be a fraud on this firm."

On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed its three-count complaint against defendant in the Oakland Circuit Court. As noted, plaintiff’s complaint alleged (1) quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, (2) breach of the GRA, and (3) misrepresentation that defendant would compensate plaintiff for the "fair value" of its work. The essence of plaintiff’s unjust-enrichment claim is stated in Paragraph 16, "The Board accepted the benefits of the [plaintiff’s] advice, and, on information and belief, used this special...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • City of Southfield v. Shefa, LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • February 10, 2022
    ...the limits of its subject-matter jurisdiction, and it must dismiss an action when subject-matter jurisdiction is not present." Meisner, 321 Mich.App. at 714. challenge to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by allegations in the pleadings. Trost v Buckstop Lure Co, Inc, 249 ......
  • City of Southfield v. Shefa, LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • February 10, 2022
    ...the limits of its subject-matter jurisdiction, and it must dismiss an action when subject-matter jurisdiction is not present." Meisner, 321 Mich.App. at 714. challenge to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by allegations in the pleadings. Trost v Buckstop Lure Co, Inc, 249 ......
  • Cnty. of Monroe v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • April 30, 2020
    ...from the plaintiff ... (2) which benefit it is inequitable that the defendant retain." Meisner Law Group PC v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n , 321 Mich.App. 702, 909 N.W.2d 890, 900 (2017) (citation omitted). Unjust enrichment extends to the unjust retention of "money or benefits which in justi......
  • New Covert Generating Co. v. Twp. of Covert
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • September 24, 2020
    ...inquiry is determined by an objective standard, not the attorney's subjective good faith." Meisner Law Group, PC v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n , 321 Mich. App. 702, 731, 909 N.W.2d 890 (2017). "A court must determine whether a claim or defense is frivolous on the basis of the circumstances a......
  • 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