Frank S Szymanski Pc v. Elizabeth Eldridge, 328349

Plaintiff Frank S. Szymanski, P.C. (through Szymanski) sued defendant Elizabeth Eldridge for unpaid attorney fees; after a bench trial the trial court awarded $27,171.44 on an account-stated theory.
The trial court found plaintiff mailed bills and demand letters in 2012 (including a February bill and later demand letters) and that defendant never timely objected to them.
Plaintiff conceded some items on the 2012 bills were mistaken (interest and a duplicated $58.50 entry) and acknowledged there was never an express agreement on the exact total alleged in the complaint.
Defendant argued no mutual agreement existed to convert the open account into an account stated and challenged whether plaintiff proved the bills were actually sent or agreed to.
The court concluded defendant’s failure to object within a reasonable time permitted an inference of assent, and allowed inquiry into mistakes but nonetheless entered judgment for plaintiff for $27,171.44.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff presented an account to defendant (i.e., mailed bills/demand letters)	Szymanski testified he directed that bills and letters be sent to Eldridge, so an account was presented	Eldridge argued plaintiff offered insufficient proof that the bills/letters were actually sent or received	Trial court’s factual finding that the account was presented was not clearly erroneous; plaintiff’s testimony plus no denial supported mailing/notice
Whether an account-stated recovery requires explicit agreement to the specific amount	Szymanski: explicit agreement to the exact sum is not required; assent can be implied from failure to object, and mistakes can be addressed in the rectitude inquiry	Eldridge: no mutual agreement existed, and plaintiff admitted there was never explicit assent to the amount	Court held assent may be inferred from inaction; plaintiff could recover on an account stated despite no explicit agreement, subject to permissible inquiry into mistakes; judgment for plaintiff affirmed

White v Campbell, 25 Mich 462 (1872) (defines account stated and explains assent may be inferred from failure to object; allows inquiry for fraud or mistake)
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co v Neal A Sweebe, 494 Mich 543 (2013) (reiterates account-stated requires assent but assent can be inferred from inaction; remand required where trial court did not assess objections)
Keywell & Rosenfeld v Bithell, 254 Mich App 300 (2002) (holds failure to object to law-firm bills can support account-stated claim and permits defendant to challenge specific bill items)
Thames v Thames, 191 Mich App 299 (1991) (articulates the clear-error standard for bench-trial factual findings)
Chelsea Investment Group, LLC v City of Chelsea, 288 Mich App 239 (2010) (states appellate review standards: bench trial facts for clear error and legal conclusions de novo)