Barnes, Broom, & McLeod, PLLC v. Estate of Cappaert
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00276-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2008 Opinion Author: DIAZ, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Apparent authority of agent - Reasonableness of attorney’s fees - Costs of collection - Section 11-53-81 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, AND LAMAR, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT; Attorney Fees |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-31-2007 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: The chancellor reduced the amount requested for attorneys' fees. Case Number: 2003-186PR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BARNES, BROOM, DALLAS AND McLEOD, PLLC |
JAMES GARY McGEE, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | ESTATE OF MARILYN I. CAPPAERT, DECEASED | DAVID M. SESSUMS | ||
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 - Apparent authority of agent - Reasonableness of attorney’s fees - Costs of collection - Section 11-53-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | After the death of Marilyn Cappaert, Harris Barnes, III was asked by the family accountant to provide legal services for her estate. The Estate was to be billed at the rate of $225 per hour for Barnes’ services, and the estimated total fee was in the range of $8,500 to $12,000. Barnes represented the Estate for eleven months before he was terminated. When the Estate refused to pay his legal fees, Barnes, Broom, Dallas and McLeod, PLLC, filed a complaint asking for $21,243.69 in attorney’s fees and for the costs of collection. The chancellor found that Barnes was entitled only to $15,000 and that he could not recover attorney’s fees related to the collection action. Barnes appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Contract Barnes argues that the chancellor erred in finding that there was no contract between him and the Estate. However, the judgment did find that there was a contract. The Cappaert Estate, recognizing that the chancellor found that there was a contract, argues in its cross-appeal that the accountant was not an agent of the executor and therefore did not have the authority to retain Barnes as counsel. The three situations in which an agent has apparent authority to bind a principal are acts or conduct by the principal indicating the agent’s authority; reasonable reliance by a third party upon those acts or conduct; and detrimental change in position by the third party as a result of such reliance. The bank as executor of the estate, indicated that the accountant had the authority to retain legal services on its behalf because the bank made no objection to Barnes’ representation until he was terminated. The accountant had worked for the Cappaerts for many years and he always negotiated the terms of the family’s legal representation. Therefore, Barnes had legitimate reasons to believe that the accountant could negotiate contracts on behalf of the Estate. Barnes suffered a detriment by performing several hours of legal work without compensation. Therefore, the chancellor was correct in finding that there was a contract for legal services between Barnes and the executor. Issue 2: Reasonableness of fees Barnes alleged in his complaint that he was owed $21,234.69, of which $5,062 was billed for his tax work. The parties did not dispute that Barnes’ fees for his tax work were reasonable, but the plaintiffs alleged that the other $16,172.69 in fees was excessive. Barnes argues he was entitled to the entire billed amount. Although the chancellor’s opinion did not make factual findings as to the specific charges that were unreasonable, it summarized the evidence presented at trial – most importantly, expert testimony that the amount of time spent on certain tasks was excessive. The opinion also noted the conflicting testimony of Barnes. Thus, it cannot be said that the chancellor abused her discretion in finding that Barnes was entitled to $15,000. Issue 3: Costs of collection Barnes argues that he was entitled to the costs of collection because his fees constituted an open account. Even if attorney’s fees constitute an open account, Barnes is not entitled to the costs of collection under section 11-53-81. For entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 11-53-81, a plaintiff must secure a judgment on the claim in the amount sued for. Because the judgment in this case was partially in favor of both parties, Barnes was not entitled to attorney’s fees for collecting the debt under the statute. In addition, there was neither a specific contractual provision nor a finding that would support punitive damages. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
