391 S.W.3d 477
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parker left the firm; former partners sought an accounting for fees they claimed were firm assets.
- Welman I held Missouri abandoned the contract approach and adopted quantum meruit for terminated contingent-fee matters.
- On remand, the trial court applied quantum meruit and entered a net judgment of $80,607 for the former partners.
- Parker appealed alleging lack of pleading quantum meruit and lack of substantial evidence of value.
- The appellate court held the remand mandate allowed a quantum meruit judgment and substantial-evidence review supported the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the quantum meruit judgment proper on remand despite pleadings? | Parker: not pleaded; lacked authority | Partners: remand mandate authorized quantum meruit | Yes; affirmed that remand authorized the quantum meruit award |
| Was there substantial evidence supporting the reasonable value of services? | Parker: evidence insufficient to support $37,000 | Partners: trial court could consider multiple McCoy factors beyond hours | Yes; substantial evidence supported the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for bench trials)
- Guidry v. Charter Communications, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 765 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (remand with directions; law of the case governs on remand)
- Frost v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 813 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. banc 1991) (mandate and opinion interpreted together on remand)
- Durwood v. Dubinsky, 361 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. banc 1962) (mandate includes opinion to interpret the mandate)
- McCoy v. The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C., 366 S.W.3d 586 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (valuation of attorney’s fees; multiple factors; deference to trial court)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 795 S.W.2d 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (mandate interpretation and use of opinion in remand)