Susan Meek, M.D. v. Rockne Onstad Individually and D/B/A the Onstad Law Firm and Joyce Stamp Lilly Individually and D/B/A Joyce Stamp Lilly, RN, JDPC
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4687
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- This is a dispute over attorney’s fees arising from quantum meruit claims in two medical-malpractice cases where Meek provided services to Onstad and Lilly.
- Boluss and Downey cases settled; Meek sought one-half of Onstad’s two-thirds contingency-fee share in each case, but Onstad denied any interest.
- Jury found no contract but awarded Meek zero reasonable attorney’s fees for Meek’s services; Meek awarded damages on quantum meruit against Onstad and none against Lilly.
- Reasonable value found: $27,500 for Meek’s services in Boluss and $2,750 in Downey (against Onstad); zero for Meek’s services against Lilly; total reasonable fees deemed zero for Meek’s own attorneys’ necessary services.
- Trial court rendered judgment: Meek took nothing against Lilly and approximately $30,250 against Onstad plus interest and costs.
- Onstad and Lilly cross-appealed challenging preservation, jury-conflict issues, and prejudgment-interest calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict in jury answers under Rule 295 | Meek asserts mandatory corrections for conflicts. | Onstad/Lilly argue no preservation or mandatory correction duty. | Meek failed to preserve; issues overruled. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for zero attorney’s fees | Meek entitled to fees under Chapter 38 given quantum meruit. | Evidence shows no necessary services or value; zero fees reasonable. | Evidence supports zero fees; verdict sustained. |
| Waiver of motion for directed verdict | N/A | Onstad preserved by motion; later evidence waived the issue. | Onstad waived by not renewing after presenting evidence. |
| Prejudgment interest calculation | Interest calculated per standard rules. | Possibly tolled by settlement offers; offers insufficient or not proven. | First argument not preserved; second argument not proven; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidence standard for legal-sufficiency review; juries as fact-finders)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (requirement to object to jury instruction to review sufficiency)
- Midland W. Bldg., L.L.C. v. First Serv. Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2009) (zero-fee award possible when services unnecessary)
- Cale’s Clean Scene Carwash, Inc. v. Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (zero-fee award permissible when no value to services)
- Lawrence v. Boles, 631 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1981) (juror discretion on attorney’s-fees in certain disputes)
- Crounse v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 336 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (sufficiency of evidence supporting fee denial in quantum meruit)
- Lundy v. Masson, 260 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (preservation and waiver principles for jury-answer conflicts)