Badgley Mullins Turner, Pllc v. Petra Russell, Et Ano
75167-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Petra Russell hired Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC (BMT) to represent her in two related, complex property cases on an hourly-fee basis with payment deferred until the end; she paid a $1,000 retainer.
- BMT provided extensive services (lead attorney testified to ~400–500 hours; another attorney ~259 hours); Russell regularly communicated with BMT and attended hearings/depositions.
- The parties settled the underlying litigation, the opposing party would not pay Russell’s attorney fees, and BMT presented an itemized invoice of fees and costs after conclusion.
- Russell did not pay the balance; BMT sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer, and accord and satisfaction. Russell counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.
- A jury awarded BMT $234,829.46 and Russell $45,834 on her fiduciary-duty claim; the trial court offset and entered judgment for BMT for $197,995.46. Russell moved for a new trial under CR 59(a)(5), (7), and (9); the court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the verdict was supported by evidence, the damages were within the range of proven damages, and credibility determinations were for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Russell) | Defendant's Argument (BMT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury's $45,834 fiduciary-duty award lacked evidentiary support such that a new trial was required under CR 59(a)(7) | Russell argued the breach (failure to provide monthly bills) must have caused greater damages at identifiable points and the $45,834 award was unsupported | BMT pointed to the signed fee agreement, extensive evidence Russell knew the hours/fees, communications about fees, and the itemized invoice | Court: No abuse of discretion; substantial evidence and reasonable inferences supported the jury's allocation of damages |
| Whether the total damages awarded to BMT were so inadequate or excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice under CR 59(a)(5) | Russell contended the verdict was inadequate given evidence of over $200,000 owed | BMT argued the jury fell within the range of proven damages after offset for fiduciary breach and could allocate timing/extent of harm | Court: No new trial; verdict within range of evidence and not the product of passion/prejudice |
| Whether substantial justice was denied warranting a new trial under CR 59(a)(9) | Russell argued the jury erred in credibility and that substantial justice required reconsideration | BMT: credibility and factual disputes are for the jury; record supports verdict | Court: No relief; credibility disputes do not alone warrant new trial when evidence supports verdict |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying a new trial overall | Russell urged cumulative error and insufficient basis for damages awards | BMT maintained ample documentary and testimonial support for verdicts and offset | Court: Affirmed denial of new trial; trial court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gestson v. Scott, 116 Wn. App. 616 (court examines standard of review for new-trial motions)
- Palmer v. Jensen, 132 Wn.2d 193 (jury damage determinations are given deference)
- Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wn.2d 572 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- Puget Sound Marina, Inc. v. Jorgensen, 3 Wn. App. 476 (verdict within range of evidence should not be set aside)
- Alger v. City of Mukilteo, 107 Wn.2d 541 (CR 59(a)(5) standard on excessive/inadequate damages)
- Sligar v. Odell, 156 Wn. App. 720 (CR 59(a)(9) substantial-justice relief rarely granted)
- Bunnell v. Barr, 68 Wn.2d 771 (disagreement over credibility is insufficient grounds for new trial when evidence otherwise supports verdict)
- Aboltin v. Heney, 62 Wash. 65 (trial court discretion regarding setting aside verdict for damages)