Joy Salmon v. Virginia Atkinson

Notable Items:

Material Facts:

• June 19, 2000, Appellees took the case on a contingency basis: fifty percent of the award plus costs and expenses.
• "it is understood that in the event of no recovery, no fee shall be charged by Atkinson Law Offices"
• Appellees began work and in late July presented a petition for the Appellant to file in the probate case.
• Appellant sent Appellees a letter dated August 1, 2000, discharging the Apellees.
• Appellees sent Appellant a letter dated August 21, 2000, alleging abrogation of contract without justification and claiming a fee for work of $7,200.
• Appellant file a [the?] petition, pro se, against the estate on September 1, 2000.
• Appellees sued the Appellant on May 10, 2001, in circuit court to recover the quantum meriut.
• A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

• Appellees suit the Appellant on May 10, 2001, in circuit court to recover a quantum meriut.
• Jury found for the Appellees at trial on December 3, 2002.
• Appellant filed a motion for judgement notwithstanding the verdict stating that due to the condition in the contract, verdict was not support by substantial evidence.
• JNOV motion denied December 17, 2002.
• Appellant filed for a new trial and nenewed JNOV motion on January 2, 2002.
• Trial court denied these motions on February 4, 2003.
• Appellant file notice of appeal on February 28, 2003.

Appellant's Claim(s):

Issues:

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Rationale

Majority Opinion

• Case of first impression.
• This court has consistently held that a discharged attorney may be paid for the reasonable value of his or her services notwithstanding that the parties entered into a contingent-fee contract ....
• The question is whether recovery of such a fee is dependent upon the contingency originally agreed to in the contract.
• "California rule": discharged attorney's cause of action does not accure unless and until the occurrance of the stated contingency....
• "New York rule": discharged attorney's cause of action accures immediately upon discharge and is not dependent upon the former client's recovery....
• "New York rule": either contract wholly stands or totally fails.
• "New York rule": ... cannot not terminate the contract and resurrect the contingency term ....
• "New York rule": forcing the attorney to wait is unfair in making recovery contingent upon the success or failure of another member of the bar.
• "New York rule": recipent [of services] would be unjustly enriched if he were able to retain the services without paying for them.
• We belive that the "New York rule" is the better rule.
• A full description of the rationale is available below

?? concur in part, dissent in part (??)

?? dissent (??)

Full Recounting of Facts

• Appellant Joy Salmon hired Appellee Virginia Atkinson to pursue a claim against the estate of George Brown.
• Appellant lived with and cared for Brown for some time prior to his death, believing that she was married to Brown, and become his widow upon his death.
• June 19, 2000, Appellees took the case on a contingency basis: fifty percent of the award plus costs and expenses.
• "it is understood that in the event of no recovery, no fee shall be charged by Atkinson Law Offices"
• Appellees began work and in late July presented a petition for the Appellant to file in the probate case.
• Appellant declined to sign the petition and delayed acting.
• Appellant sent Appellees a letter dated August 1, 2000, discharging the Apellees.
• Appellees sent Appellant a letter dated August 21, 2000, alleging abrogation of contract without justification and claiming a fee for work of $7,200.
• Appellant file a [the?] petition, pro se, against the estate on September 1, 2000.
• Appellees sued the Appellant on May 10, 2001, in circuit court to recover the quantum meriut.
• Jury found for the Appellees at trial on December 3, 2002.
• Appellant filed a motion for judgement notwithstanding the verdict stating that due to the condition in the contract, verdict was not support by substantial evidence.
• JNOV motion denied December 17, 2002.
• Appellant filed for a new trial and nenewed JNOV motion on January 2, 2002.
• Trial court denied these motions on February 4, 2003.
• Appellant file notice of appeal on February 28, 2003.
• A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

• The core of the rationale is available above