Falkner v. Stubbs
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01664-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01664-COA ; 2010-CA-01664-COA ; 2010-CT-01664-SCT ; 2010-CT-01664-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-07-2013 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Circuit court reversed and remanded. |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2012 |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Quantum merit - Contract implied in law - Prejudgment interest - Section 75-17-1 - Section 87-7-3 - Unliquidated claim - Attorney's fees - Section 85-7-181 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-01-2010 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: JUDGMENT OF $60,723.53 GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: H-2001-95 |
|
| Note: | On August 15, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a subsequent opinion on a motion for rehearing. That opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO83421.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Martin Falkner and wife, Valerie J. Falkner |
JOHN P. FOX |
||
| Appellee: | John E. Stubbs, Jr. d/b/a Mississippi Polysteel | GENE BARTON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Quantum merit - Contract implied in law - Prejudgment interest - Section 75-17-1 - Section 87-7-3 - Unliquidated claim - Attorney's fees - Section 85-7-181 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Stubbs filed an action for breach of contract against Martin and Valerie Falkner to enforce a construction lien on their home. The circuit court awarded Stubbs the value of “his services, the services of his workmen, travel expense and materials purchased by Plaintiff for the dwelling,” with Stubbs’s and his workmen’s hourly labor and travel rates determined on a quantum meruit basis. The court also awarded Stubbs prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the rate of eight percent and attorney’s fees, which totaled nearly $20,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment with the exception of the award of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. Stubbs filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Because the circuit court had used quantum meruit to determine Stubbs’s hourly fee, the Court of Appeals held that “the instant case involves a contract implied in law . . . and is, therefore a quantum merit suit,” such that “the circuit court’s award of pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees was improper.” Stubbs argues that this is not a case based in quantum meruit. The judgment from the lower court indicates that the judge applied quantum meruit only to fix the disputed rate for Stubbs’s labor and travel time. The award of damages was based on the Falkners’ breach of an oral contract, not a contract implied in law. The circuit court appears to have relied on section 75-17-1 in awarding prejudgment interest. However, an award of prejudgment interest under that statute would be improper where a claim for damages is unliquidated. The same considerations which preclude a recovery of prejudgment interest for unliquidated amounts owed under section 75-17-1 apply to section 87-7-3. Therefore, Stubbs must show that his claims against the Falkners were liquidated in order to recover. The amount of Stubbs’s claim was clearly in dispute. Thus, the claim is unliquidated and prejudgment interest cannot be awarded. Attorney’s fees are also improper. While Stubbs relies on section 85-7-181 as the basis for his recovery of attorney’s fees, that statute is inapplicable to this case. In addition, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held this statute is facially unconstitutional in Noatex Corp. v. King Constr. of Houston, LLC, 864 F. Supp. 2d 478 (5th Cir. 2012). While attorney’s fees are available under section 85-7-151 in an action to enforce a contractor’s lien, Stubbs is not entitled to attorney’s fees under this statute since he recovered damages only for breach of contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
