Rogers v. Casey and Co. LLC
| Docket Number: | 2018-CA-00800-COA Linked Case(s): 2018-CA-00800-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-10-2019 Opinion Author: Carlton, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Contractual intent - Definiteness - Reasonableness of contract price - Attorney's fee - Open account - Section 11-53-81 Judge(s) Concurring: Barnes, C.J., JWilson, P.J., Greenlee, Westbrooks, Tindell, McDonald, Lawrence, McCarty and CWilson, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2018 Appealed from: CHICKASAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: HON. JOHN ANDREW GREGORY Disposition: Casey and Co. LLC sued Rogers over damages regarding florist services and materials supplied for Rogers's wedding. Court found in favor of Casey & Co., awarding a judgment in the amount of $5,073.44 and an attorney's fee in the amount of $2,536.72. Case Number: 2017-079-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Alaina Hill Rogers |
RICHARD SHANE McLAUGHLIN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Casey and Co. LLC | REX F. SANDERSON | ||
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: | Contract - Contractual intent - Definiteness - Reasonableness of contract price - Attorney's fee - Open account - Section 11-53-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Casey and Co. LLC, owned by Casey Moss, sued Alaina Rogers for damages regarding florist services and materials supplied for Alaina’s wedding in May 2017. Alaina’s family operates a furniture store (Woodlands Furniture). The court found that in December 2016, before any florist-planning services took place, the parties agreed that Casey would perform the florist services for Alaina’s wedding and that Casey could have a sectional sofa, with a pre-tax retail value of $3,799, from Woodlands Furniture. The trial court further found that the value of the sectional sofa would be credited on Casey’s final bill to Alaina for her florist services. Casey and Alaina subsequently met three times at the wedding-venue site between January 2017 and May 13, 2017, which was Alaina’s wedding day. Casey tendered the final bill for the florist services and materials to Alaina. The statement provided an itemized description and price for all materials and labor furnished, totaling $8,872.44, and reflected a $3,799 credit for the sectional sofa, resulting in a final balance of $5,073.44. Alaina refused to pay. After Alaina refused to pay, Casey & Co. filed its complaint seeking recovery on the total amount of indebtedness of $5,073.44, together with costs, interest, and attorney’s fees. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Casey & Co., awarding a judgment in the amount of $5,073.44, together with interest and costs. The trial court also awarded an attorney’s fee in the amount of $2,536.72. Alaina appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The elements of a valid contract are two or more contracting parties; consideration; an agreement that is sufficiently definite; parties with the legal capacity to make a contract; mutual assent; and no legal prohibition precluding contract formation. Alaina argues that any agreement between her and Casey was not “sufficiently definite” because they did not have any agreement as to the price of Casey’s florist services and materials. The trial court found that Casey’s testimony and the text messages between Casey and Alaina “indicated that the cost of the sectional would be credited on the final account for the wedding” and that the statement of account that Casey tendered to Alaina showed that Casey applied a credit for the sectional sofa for the agreed upon amount of $3,799.00, leaving a final balance of $5,073.44. The trial court also heard the parties’ testimony and reviewed the evidence regarding the conduct of the parties, including the meetings between Alaina and Casey, the numerous photos Alaina gave to Casey to show her what she wanted at her wedding, and the copious notes taken by Casey at her meetings with Alaina. There is no evidence to support a theory that the cost of the floral services were limited to the cost of the sectional sofa. Instead, the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the parties would settle up at the end. Casey’s detailed statement of the account, itemizing each item furnished and labor costs, provides the reasonable means to determine the cost so as to allow the trial court to enforce the parties’ contractual intentions. Additionally, the testimony from the owner of a flower shop in nearby Amory supports the trial judge’s decision that the contract price was reasonable. Thus, substantial, credible evidence supports the trial court’s judgment against Alaina for the amount of $5,073.44, together with interest and costs. Alaina also argues that there was no legal basis for an award of an attorney’s fee and thus the trial court’s award of $2,536.72 in an attorney’s fee should be reversed and rendered. Unless provided by statute or contract, or unless punitive damages are awarded, attorneys’ fees may not be recovered. In this case, there is no contractual provision allowing for the recovery of attorney’s fees, nor does this case involve an open account under section 11-53-81. Thus, the trial court erred in awarding an attorney’s fee to Casey & Co. for an open account, and this issue is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
