Garrity v. Mead

Bridget GARRITY, Esq. v. Shawna MEAD

No. LLICV186018733S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Litchfield, Torrington

March 13, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Bentivegna, J.

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case concerns a dispute regarding a fee agreement for professional legal services. The action was originally brought by the plaintiff in small claims court. See (# 100.30). The defendant requested to have the case transferred from the small claims docket to the regular Superior Court docket (# 101), which was granted on June 13, 2018. See (# 102). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint (# 109), dated September 11, 2018, alleging breach of contract in the First Count and quantum meruit in the Second Count. The defendant filed an answer and/or objections to request for admissions. See (# 111). After other motions were litigated, a trial management conference was held on January 17, 2019, for which notice was sent to the defendant, but she failed to appear. The plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to appear (# 128), dated January 17, 2019, which was granted. See (Order # 128.20). A court trial was scheduled on March 1 2019, for which notice was sent to the defendant, but she failed to appear. ‘The plaintiff testified and presented evidence. Afterwards, an affidavit of attorneys fees and costs was filed on March 5, 2019. See (# 131). For the following reasons, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff.

II DISCUSSION

A Breach of Contract

The plaintiff alleges a claim of breach of contract in the first count of the amended complaint. The essential elements for a cause of action based on breach of contract are (1) agreement formation, (2) performance by one party, (3) breach of the agreement by the other party, (4) direct and proximate cause, and (5) damages. McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn.App. 486, 503-04, 890 A.2d 140, cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928, 895 A.2d 798 (2006). Damages are an essential element of the plaintiff’s proof and must be proved with reasonable certainty. Simone Corp. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 187 Conn. 487, 495, 446 A.2d 1071 (1982). "The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether damages are appropriate." Amwax Corp. v. Chadwick, 28 Conn.App. 739, 745, 612 A.2d 127 (1992). To prove its claim, the plaintiff must prove the elements by the fair preponderance of the evidence standard, which is "properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394, 440 A.2d 952 (1981).

In this case, the defendant failed to appear at the trial management conference and the court trial, which were duly noticed. "If a party fails to comply with an order of a judicial authority or a citation to appear or fails without proper excuse to appear in person or by counsel for trial, the party may be nonsuited or defaulted by the judicial authority." Practice Book § 17-19. "If a defendant is defaulted for failure to appear for trial, evidence may be introduced and judgment rendered without notice to the defendant." Practice Book § 17-33(a). The defendant is in default for failure to appear.

The Court finds the following facts. The plaintiff is a licensed attorney with years of experience representing clients in family matters. On or about May 5, 2017, the defendant engaged the services of the plaintiff to represent her in connection with a grandparent visitation issue. She is the maternal grandmother of a special needs child. At that time, the defendant’s daughter was engaged in a contested divorce/custody case. On or about May 13, 2017, the defendant signed a written fee agreement letter with the plaintiff and paid the retainer of $ 5, 000.00. As a result, the parties entered into a valid written agreement for professional legal services.

Over the next several months, the plaintiff provided legal services to the defendant and performed under the fee agreement. The divorce/custody case was hotly contested and required numerous emails, telephone calls, meetings, court appearances, and office and phone conferences. Legal research was required. The plaintiff appeared in court on the defendant’s behalf and filed pleadings, including a motion for intervention in the daughter’s case, which was provisionally granted. When the retainer was depleted, the defendant paid additional sum(s) to the plaintiff. However, the defendant’s payments failed to cover the full costs of the plaintiff’s representation under the fee agreement.

On or about September 29, 2017, the defendant terminated the services and fee agreement with the plaintiff and hired another attorney. During this period, the plaintiff had declined to seek an ex-parte order of custody against the grandchild’s father.

The balance for services rendered, as of September 2017, was $ 7, 054.50. This amount includes discounts that the plaintiff gave for courtesy reasons as well as shared legal research. The plaintiff made several requests for payment to the defendant without success. The defendant has failed to make any additional payments towards the balance due. The defendant has breached the agreement based on nonpayment for professional services rendered.

The plaintiff made several efforts to resolve the payment dispute, including a request to have the matter submitted to the Connecticut Bar Association fee dispute section. The defendant filed a grievance against Attorney Garrity, which was dismissed for lack of probable cause on December 13, 2018.

As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant’s breach of the fee agreement, based on nonpayment, the plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $ 7, 054.50. Based on the evidence presented, the plaintiff has proved, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all the elements of her breach of contract claim.

B Quantum Meruit

In the Second Count, the plaintiff has alleged a claim of quantum meruit. "Quantum meruit is the remedy available to a party when the trier of fact determines that an implied contract for services existed between the parties, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of services rendered ... The pleadings must allege facts to support the theory that the defendant, by knowingly accepting the services of the plaintiff and representing to her that she would be compensated in the future, impliedly promised to pay her for the services she rendered." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schreiber v. Connecticut Surgical Group, P.C., 96 Conn.App. 731, 737, 901 A.2d 1277 (2006). A contractor is permitted to recover the reasonable value of services rendered when the other party has wrongfully prevented him from completing the contract. Dadio v. Dadio, 123 Conn. 88, 92, 192 A. 557 (1937). Our Supreme Court has held that a discharged attorney is entitled to receive "reasonable compensation" for the work he or she has done up to the point of discharge. Cole v. Myers, 128 Conn. 223, 229-30, 21 A.2d 396 (1941). In Shapero v. Mercede, 77 Conn.App. 497, 507, 823 A.2d 1263 (2003), the court stated that: "quantum meruit is a doctrine that provides restitution for amounts not previously paid ... In other words, by alleging a cause of action in quantum meruit, the plaintiff asked the court to award him a reasonable sum for services rendered and for which payment had not been made previously. In fact, in the quantum meruit count of his complaint, he expressly sought to recover the reasonable value of the services he ‘performed ... to [his] financial detriment." (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

In this case, the evidence demonstrated that the parties entered into a...