Island Lake Arbors Condominium Ass'n v. Meisner & Associates, P.C.
301 Mich. App. 384
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Island Lake hired Meisner & Associates to sue Toll Brothers under a hybrid fee agreement (hourly plus 12% contingency).
- Attachment A and the agreement tie a reduced hourly rate to a capped contingency share, stated as 12% of the recovery.
- Island Lake terminated Meisner after about 18 months; Meisner asserted an attorney’s charging lien and Island Lake sought a declaratory judgment that no additional fees were owed.
- The circuit court found ambiguity in the fee contract and required jury resolution; settlement with Toll Brothers occurred but terms were sealed, and discovery was denied.
- This Court reversed, holding the contract unambiguously provides a contingent fee and that quantum meruit governs the amount, capped at 12% of the recovery, with disclosure of settlement details on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retainer agreement is ambiguous on post-termination fees | Meisner contends ambiguity exists in ¶ 13 and related provisions | Island Lake argues the contract clearly limits fees to wind-up costs | Contract is unambiguous; Meisner entitled to a contingent fee up to 12% |
| How quantum meruit should be calculated when a discharged attorney seeks fees | Meisner seeks recovery based on contract-based contingency, subject to cap | Fees should be determined by quantum meruit independently of the contract | Quantum meruit applies with a cap at 12% of the recovery, reflecting the contract terms |
| What method fixes Meisner’s fee amount on remand | Determine value by Meisner’s contribution to the recovery | Determine value by proportion of hours or overall value | Use a Reynolds/Morris-style quantum meruit, capped at 12%, based on Meisner’s contribution to the cash value of the settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Detroit, 189 Mich App 271 (1991) (quantum meruit for discharged contingency-fee cases; cap not to exceed contract in some circumstances)
- Reynolds v. Polen, 222 Mich App 20 (1997) (quantum meruit for discharged contingent-fee agreements; value based on actual services rendered)
- Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd., 212 Mich App 325 (1995) (quantum meruit under contingency context; contract terms guide value)
- Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich 459 (2003) (contract interpretation; ambiguity and jury question standards)