WPC  QLg|hLNBv/ήMCמE6#Ruikߚsѱi\>Y\CvHDzZ|\ ozX`M"= ֕J.&pJLn eecx^:Ԅ )0W/1H $g) sciqnyæނ vFkiN|vc p|KX.p';X޹xa bj|{.AH*lG%1Vd,D8G,NC[1l)ʏ!tT:kaa@bTDamǢMr1Z*j{_b=L$ٟ@c|Jy:ġk=rbtz}\uF޹dOl<8JXp__1 @MuayQ* lRPȬsͽ 6;üRƩM TiQӑ*# LU :W % 0(b w@4 .6 0lJ 0DU: 8 U:< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Bv AQ  0D 0D 0D2 2 D/v v B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - _D`abDcdeDfgӀqy&T$3|xr   XX     1    Noissuearoseinthiscaseovertheproperprocedureforthedeterminationofanattorneys  lienunderTenn.CodeAnn.232102,103.Wewouldpointoutthattheprocessisfairlycomplicated,andwereferinterestedpartiestoouropinioninStarksv.Browning,App.No.01A019801CV00038, | filedatNashvilleAug.3,1999.((3$ !      0  (#$  0   ""  XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX   August18,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular ""  XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX   August12,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !  ggTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7    fPXX  qgr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rgqqr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rqgg@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLE XXfPԈ  ̜LATRICIAMCGEEandhusband,  )   CECILMCGEE,     8   )     0      8   ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, 8   ) zr    0      8   )  AppealNo. `X    0      8   )  01A019810CV00539 F>  МVS.  0      8   ) ,$    0      8   )  DavidsonCircuit     0      8   )  No.95C3787   GUYMAYNARDandFLEET 8   )   @      H!  #    TRANSPORTCOMPANY,INC., 8   )    0      8   ) Defendants/Appellants. 8   )  @ APPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@#ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@X X THEHONORABLETHOMASW.BROTHERS,JUDGEJOSEPHK.DUGHMAN315DeaderickStreet2075FirstAmericanCenterNashville,Tennessee372382075 AttorneyforPlaintiffs/Appellees̜JOLADEA.O.MOORE1815JeffersonStreet,#204Nashville,Tennessee37208 AttorneyforDefendants/Appellants@$AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8     PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:KOCH,J.CAIN,J. hXX@tt(OPINION XXhԈ ;x4:o Ї  0 Thequestionpresentedinthisappealistheproperamountofanattorneysfeewheretheattorneywasdischargedpriortotheterminationofthecasebelow.TheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyawardedthelesserofthecontractamountorquantummeruit.Theappellantassertsthatthecontractamountshouldhaveincludedonethirdofanadditional$15,000.Weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtinrejectingtheappellantscontention.@- I.      0 Theappellantrepresentedtheplaintiffsinapersonalinjuryaction.Afterthecompletionofdiscoverytheappellantandherclientshadadisagreementoverthevalueoftheclaim.Attheplaintiffsrequest,theappellantwithdrewascounselandfiledanoticeofalienontherightofactionpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.232102,103.Thenoticestatedthatthelienwasbasedonquantummeruit.Theappellantattachedanexhibitreflectinganexpenditureoftimeandexpensesintheamountof$8,576.50.Withnewcounsel,theplaintiffssettledthecaseandthecourtsetahearingontheamountoftheappellantslien.   #  1      ׀Afterthehearingthecourtenteredthe #  followingorder:8 80 ! !  ThiscausecametobeheardbeforetheHonorableThomasW.Brothersonthe9thdayofAugust,1998,uponthemotionofJolaMooretodetermineattorneyfees,testimonyofthePlaintiff,AffidavitofJolaMoore,statementsofcounsel,andtherecordasawhole,fromallofwhichtheCourtisoftheopinionasfollows: 0 0  8 80 ! !  1.  TheCourtfindsthatPlaintiffswerejustified -&+ indischargingJolaMoore,andtheCourtfindsthatJolaMoorewasterminatedwithcause. 0 0  8 80 ! !  2.  JolaMooreisawardedanattorneyfee N1F*/ baseduponthelesserofquantummeruitorcontract.The 42,+0 Courtfindstherewasa$10,000.00offermadebytheDefendantsatthetimethatJolaMoorewasdischarged. TheCourtfindsthatJolaMooreisentitledtoafeeof 4-3 $3,333.33,andfurtherawards$64.00inexpenses,foratotalof$3,397.33. 0 0   8 80 ! !  3.  TheCourtfurtherfindsthatthebalanceof H@  themoneyheldinescrowshallbepaidtothePlaintiffs. 0 0   8 80 ! !  0 0    0 Theappellantfileda MotiontoStayExecutionofOrderandForReviewwhichthecourttreatedasaRule59.04MotiontoAlterorAmend.Accordingtothemotiontheoffermadetotheplaintiffswhiletheywererepresentedbytheappellantincluded$15,000inmedicalbillsinadditiontothe$10,000foundbythecourt.Thereforetheappellantsoughtanadditional$5,000forherfee.Thecourtoverruledtheappellantsmotion.@- II.  $   0 BothsidesagreethatthecontrollingauthorityisAdamsv.Mellen,618 ' # S.W.2d485(Tenn.App.1981).Thetrialjudgecorrectlyheldthatwhereaclientdischargesanattorneyforcause,theattorneyisentitledtorecoverthelesserofthecontractpriceorquantummeruit.InAdams,thiscourtsaid: x-p&) 8 80 ! !Weareoftheopinionthatthebetterruleisthataclientsdischargeofhisattorneyafterrefusingasettlementofferinacontingencyfeecase,unlessdoneinbadfaith,isnotabreach;andthatwherethereisnobreach,thepropermeasureofrecoveryisthelesserofquantummeruitorthecontractprice. 0 0  618S.W.2dat488.SeealsoCrawfordv.Logan,656S.W.2d360(Tenn.1983). 5.2  926   0 Forcause,therefore,includesadisagreementoverthevalueoftheclaim;itdoesnotnecessarilysuggestbadfaith,incompetence,orneglect.Itisbasedonthepeculiarnatureofthecontractbetweenanattorneyandclient,whichincludestheclientsrighttodischargetheattorneywhenevertheclientceasestohaveabsoluteconfidenceintherelationship.SeeChambliss,BahnerandCrawfordv.  Luther,531S.W.2d108(Tenn.App.1975). h`    0 Thus,weconcludethatthetrialjudgecorrectlyfoundthattheappellantwasdischargedforcause.Herrecovery,therefore,isgovernedbythelesserofthecontractpriceorquantummeruit.  0 Theappellantinsiststhatevenunderthisrulesheisentitledto$8,333.33(thecontractprice)becauseitislessthan$8,576.50(thetotalofhertimeandexpenses,herversionofquantummeruit).Thetroublewiththisargumentisthecompleteabsenceofprooftosupporteitherfigure.Apparentlytheappellantscontractwiththeplaintiffswasforonethirdoftherecovery,andtheofferoverwhichthepartiesdisagreedwasanofferbythedefendanttopaytheplaintiffs$10,000 plusonehalfofthemedicalexpenses.Theplaintiffsconcedethatmuch,butthereisnoproofoftheamountofthemedicalexpenses.Atthehearing,thepartiestalkedingeneraltermsaboutthemedicalexpenses,butthereisnoprooffromwhichwecouldinferthatthefigurethedefendantwaswillingtopayformedicalswas$15,000(basedonatotalof$30,000inmedicalexpenses).  0 Withrespecttoquantummeruit,theonlyproofintherecordistheappellantsaffidavitshowingthehoursshespentonthecaseandherhourlyrate.Arecoveryinquantummeruit,however,isnotmeasuredbythedetrimenttotheplaintiffbutbythebenefitconferredonthedefendant.Castelliv.Lien,910S.W.2d420 704 (Tenn.App.1995).Thetwoareobviouslynotthesame.InSkeensv.Rust 926 EngineeringCompany,_ZNo.__________,19Z_`19`89WLa7abZ1Zb0739c,cat*d3de___e(Tenn.Ap^p^.June\30,1989),\]14TAM329,]thiscourt  referredtothefactorsthatbearona reasonablefeeindeterminingtheamountofrecoverybasedonquantummeruit.Thetimedevotedtoperformingthelegalserviceisonlyonefactorinanextensivelist.SeeRulesoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,   Rule8,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,DR2106(B).  0 Theappellantalsoarguesthattheonlyreasonthetrialjudgedeniedanyfeeforthemedicalexpenseswasthefactthatatthefirsthearingshedidnothavetheexecutedcontractswiththemedicalprovidersshowingthattheyhademployedhertopursuetheirsubrogationinterests.Sheproducedthecontractsatthehearingonthemotiontoalteroramend,andnowassertsthatsheisautomaticallyentitledtoafeebasedonthe$15,000sheassertswasincludedintheoffer.  0 Wehavealreadynotedthedefectsintheproofaboutthemedicalexpenses.Thetrialjudgealludedtothelackofproofattheconclusionofthesecondhearing.Viewingtheproofatbothhearings,wecannotconcludethatthetrialjudgewouldhaveawardedtheappellantanextra$5,000ifonlyshehadintroducedtheagreementsatthefirsthearing.  0 Wearealsooftheopinionthattheappellanthasconfusedthenatureofhermotiontofixtheamountofherlien.Shewasaskingthecourttofixtheamountowedtoherbytheplaintiffs.Itdoesnotappearwhytheplaintiffswouldbe h.`'* responsibletotheappellantforafeeontheamountrecoveredfortheinsurancecompanies.Werealizethatplaintiffslawyersoftenrepresentotherpartieswhohavesubrogationrights,butgreatcaremustbeexercisedtoavoidtheinevitableconflictsthatarisewhentheclaimissettled.  704   0 Theappelleesassertthatthisisafrivolousappeal.Tenn.CodeAnn. 271122.Wearenotpersuadedthattheappealwastakensolelyfordelayorwasotherwisefrivolous.  0 Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.ThecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.  0      8   _________________________________  0      8   BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8   PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE_____________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  )"%   XX: @.fINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLEf fX:XԜLATRICIAMCGEEandhusband,  ) v n CECILMCGEE,     8   ) f ^   0      8   ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, 8   )  AppealNo.#XX:0#X:X F>   0      8   )  01A019810CV00539#XX:2#X:X 6.    0      8   )   &  МVS.  0      8   )  DavidsonCircuit#XX:2#X:X     0      8   )  No.95C3787#XX:3#X:X     0      8   )     GUYMAYNARDandFLEET 8   )  Affirmedand     H!  #    TRANSPORTCOMPANY,INC., 8   )  Remanded    0      8   ) Defendants/Appellants. 8   )  #XX:4#X:XXX: @uu'JUDGMENT  ~ X:X  0 Thiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromthe  CircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel;uponconsiderationwhereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatinthejudgmentofthetrialcourtthereisnoreversibleerror.  0 InaccordancewiththeopinionoftheCourtfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyfortheexecutionofthejudgmentofthatcourtandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow.  0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainstJolaMoore,Principal,andϜOlubanjiSokoya,Surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.  0      8     0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGEf