John A. Daugherty v. Molly Chew Baker (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-22-900749).
SC-2024-0142
Ala.Nov 8, 2024Background
- John A. Daugherty, an attorney, represented Molly Chew Baker in attempting to collect alimony arrears from her ex-husband after a divorce decree.
- Daugherty and Baker signed a contingency fee contract, with Daugherty to receive 25% of any recovery from the ex-husband, plus expenses.
- Daugherty expanded his representation to include matters beyond merely collecting arrears, including a petition from the ex-husband to modify alimony.
- The underlying domestic-relations (family law) case was dismissed by agreement of Baker and her ex-husband.
- Daugherty attempted to recover fees under the contract after dismissal, but the circuit court found the contract void as against public policy, citing Alabama's prohibition of contingency fees in domestic-relations matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a contingency fee contract enforceable in a domestic-relations case? | The contract should be enforced as written; there is an exception for collection of arrears after divorce. | The contract is void because contingency fees are prohibited in alimony/domestic-relations matters. | The contract was unenforceable; prohibition applied, with no binding exception. |
| Does quantum meruit entitle Daugherty to payment for services rendered? | Even if the contract is void, quantum meruit should provide compensation. | Quantum meruit was not pleaded in Daugherty’s complaint and thus is waived. | Quantum meruit not available as it was never formally pleaded. |
| Was Daugherty’s claim barred by res judicata from prior proceedings? | No, since prior court said contract claims couldn’t be heard in family court. | Yes, because Daugherty already brought and lost a contract claim in earlier action. | Not barred by res judicata; earlier case not decided on the merits. |
| Is dismissal of the contract claim a final judgment allowing appeal? | The circuit court’s order was final on the contract claim. | Counterclaims were still pending; no finality. | All counterclaims either addressed or implicitly denied; order is final. |
Key Cases Cited
- Triplett v. Elliott, 590 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 1991) (Attorneys discharged without cause may recover compensation for services rendered before discharge)
- Harlow v. Sloss Indus. Corp., 813 So. 2d 879 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (Contingency fee contracts control attorney’s lien rights; quantum meruit only if no contract)
- Poole v. Prince, 61 So. 3d 258 (Ala. 2010) (Violation of Professional Conduct rules is disciplinary, not grounds for contract unenforceability, unless pleaded)
- Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, P.C. v. Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, 554 So. 2d 445 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (Quantum meruit recovery available to discharged attorneys for services rendered prior to discharge)