121 So. 3d 899
Miss.2013Background
- Stubbs (contractor) and the Falkners orally agreed in 2000 that Stubbs would build a basement for $25,000; Stubbs completed that work and was paid.
- The Falkners then asked Stubbs to continue building the house step-by-step without a written agreement; parties disputed the scope, hourly rate, and total cost for the additional work.
- Stubbs received periodic draws and claimed he had been paid $45,840.25 but was still owed $25,256.43; the Falkners believed they had overpaid based on their expectations of total cost.
- Stubbs filed a construction lien and sued for outstanding construction costs; the circuit court found an oral contract and awarded damages calculated by quantum meruit, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest and nearly $20,000 in attorney’s fees.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on damages but reversed the awards of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, concluding the recovery was in quantum meruit which precludes those remedies.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether statutes supported awards of prejudgment interest or attorney’s fees and affirmed the Court of Appeals: no statutory basis for either remedy; remanded for final award without interest or fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest was recoverable | Stubbs: statutory grounds (§87-7-3 or §75-17-1) authorize prejudgment interest for amounts owed contractors | Falkners: amount was disputed/unliquidated; quantum meruit applied so interest improper | No prejudgment interest — amount was unliquidated; statutes do not authorize interest here |
| Whether attorney’s fees were recoverable | Stubbs: fees available under statutes (citing §85-7-181) | Falkners: statutory bases relied on by Stubbs do not apply; fees are special remedy requiring statutory/contractual authority | No attorney’s fees — §85-7-181 (stop-notice) inapplicable; §85-7-151 fees only for lien enforcement where sale ordered, which did not occur |
| Nature of recovery: contract vs. quantum meruit | Stubbs: trial court found an oral contract and awarded for breach | Falkners/Ct of Appeals: judge used quantum meruit to fix rates; recovery is in quantum meruit for parts | Supreme Court: damages based on an oral contract but trial court employed quantum meruit to fix hourly rates; regardless, statutory bases for interest/fees absent |
| Proper remedy under contractor-lien statutes | Stubbs: initially invoked stop-notice statute and lien remedies | Falkners: plaintiff recovered only contract damages and did not seek enforcement sale under lien statutes | Fees under lien statute (§85-7-151) unavailable because court did not order sale/enforce lien; thus fee provision inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d 373 (Miss. 2000) (bench-trial factual findings given chancellor-like deference)
- In re Estate of Smith, 69 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2011) (standards for reviewing factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Bailey v. Estate of Kemp, 955 So.2d 777 (Miss. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for interest and fee awards)
- Southland Enters., Inc. v. Newton County, 838 So.2d 286 (Miss. 2003) (quantum meruit recovery precludes prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees)
- Moeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (prejudgment interest unavailable for unliquidated claims)
- Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So.2d 35 (Miss. 2006) (no prejudgment interest when principal not fixed prior to judgment)
- Coho Res., Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2002) (discussion on liquidated vs. unliquidated damages for interest awards)
- Stanton & Assocs., Inc. v. Bryant Constr. Co., Inc., 464 So.2d 499 (Miss. 1985) (attorney’s fees are a special remedy available only by statute or contract)
- McLain v. W. Side Bone & Joint Ctr., 656 So.2d 119 (Miss. 1995) (normally no attorney’s fees absent statute or authority)
- Garner v. Hickman, 733 So.2d 191 (Miss. 1999) (attorney’s fees under lien statute unavailable where plaintiff sued only for breach of contract and did not seek lien enforcement)
- Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So.2d 1374 (Miss. 1990) (bona fide dispute over amount makes claim unliquidated for interest purposes)