293 P.3d 55
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hannon represents clients under a contingent fee and shared-fee arrangement with Melat and Howarth as co-counsel in a federal litigation.
- Hannon withdrew with court approval; Howarth and Melat continued representation and ultimately obtained recovery for the clients.
- After settlement, Melat paid Hannon for pre-withdrawal costs but did not compensate for Hannon's pre-withdrawal legal services.
- Hannon filed a quantum meruit claim against Melat and Howarth about the value of services before withdrawal, within three years of discovery of recovery.
- Melat and Howarth moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing accrual occurred at withdrawal and the statute of limitations had run.
- The trial court treated the motion as summary judgment and granted, leading to appellate review of accrual timing and Rule 5(d) applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the quantum meruit claim accrue? | Hannon argues accrual occurs when recovery is known or should be known. | Melat/Howarth contend accrual is at withdrawal or when services conferred. | Accrual occurs when recovery is known or should be known. |
| Does Rule 5(d) bar Hannon's quantum meruit against co-counsel istance? | Hannon asserts Rule 5(d) does not apply to attorney-against-attorney quantum meruit. | Melat/Howarth argue Rule 5(d) would bar recovery against the clients, indirectly affecting co-counsel. | Rule 5(d) applies only to claims against a client; not to claims against former co-counsel. |
| Should the court adopt California or New York accrual rules for attorney-quasi-contract claims? | California rule accrues at contingency; New York rule accrues at withdrawal; neither fully fits attorney-against-attorney context. | Maintain focus on unjust retention of benefits rather than contract terms; neither rule governs accrual here. | Accrual analyzed by when retention becomes unjust, not strictly by California or New York rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441 (Colo. 2000) (quantum meruit as unjust enrichment; elements defined)
- Mullens v. Hansel-Henderson, 65 P.3d 992 (Colo. 2002) (quantum meruit recovery; notice and contingent fees implications)
- Cablevision v. Central City, 649 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1982) (analogy on expectations and benefits informing quantum meruit)
- Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784 (Cal. 1972) (California rule concerning accrual against clients in contingent-fee cases)
- Tillman v. Komar, 259 N.Y.133 (N.Y. 1932) (New York rule accrual at withdrawal in attorney-client context)
- Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., 205 P.3d 698 (Colo. 2009) (accrual when all elements of quantum meruit are present)
- Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992) (accrual generally when suit may be maintained)
- D.C.B. Constructors Co. v. Central City Dev. Co., 965 P.2d 115 (Colo. 1998) (tests for unjust enrichment and accrual considerations)
- Jorgensen v. Colo. Rural Props., LLC, 226 P.3d 1255 (Colo. App. 2010) (quantum meruit/quasi-contract; independence from contract terms)