WPC 0# UN %  0(w@74w 0D 0l 0DJ 0J 0T 0^, 0h 0r 0|d 0 0f 1u 0dk U> B) 0@6 D3v DC AM U*9 c f pv~ AQU B 0D8 D/| BvHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ 12345678ӀDEzz!3|xE(3$ !  ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("$    ++++'dxd7Border 1dd* "C << G<  9p`(Arial !  "  $$   YYY FILED$X April7,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk   !   $       Attorneysfees .Compensationforreasonableattorneysfeesintheeventanemploymentcontractexistsbetweentheclaimantandhisattorneyonacontingentfeearrangementshallbeawardedtotheclaimantsattorneyinamalpracticeactioninanamounttobedeterminedbythecourtonthebasisoftimeandeffortdevotedtothelitigationbytheclaimantsattorney,complexityoftheclaimandotherpertinentmattersinconnectiontherewith,nottoexceedthirtythreeandonethirdpercent(331/3%)ofalldamagesawardedtotheclaimant. f !   $       Therationaleforthisruleisthatanappellatecourtdecisionreversingthetrialcourtsjudgmentmerely isdoingwhatshouldhavebeendoneinthefirstinstance. Gottenv.Gotten ,748S.W.2d430,431(Tenn.App.1987).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h* ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d($$   1  ..' dxdP PdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! .   \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) WILLIAMP.NEWTON,  ) ShelbyCountyChanceryCourt ) No.950253R.D.̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.02A019604CH00086 ) JAMESS.COX,  ) )̀Defendant/Appellee. ) )______________________________________________________________________________*R#%"A1-j|F=`  `@RFromtheChanceryCourtofShelbyCountyatMemphis. HonorableJoeC.Morris,Sp.Chancellor JamesF.Schaeffer,Jr. ,Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. RussellFowler ,Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendant/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDASMODIFIEDANDREMANDED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X PlaintiffWilliamP.Newtonappealsthetrialcourtsorderawardinghima$28,125judgmentagainsthisformerattorney,Defendant/AppelleeJamesS.Cox,butdenyingNewtonsclaimforprejudgmentinterest.NewtonsclaimaroseoutofCoxsretentionofacontingencyfeeinexcessofthemaximumpermittedbystatute.WeaffirmthejudgmententeredinfavorofNewton,butwithcertainmodificationshereinaftersetforth. CoxpreviouslyrepresentedNewtonandNewtonsformerwifeinamedicalmalpracticeaction.InthecomplaintfiledbyCox,Newtonsought$3millionindamagesforhisinjuries,andNewtonswifesought$1millionforherlossofconsortium.ThemalpracticeactionsubsequentlysettledinJune1985for$225,000.Perthepartiesfeecontract,Coxretainedonehalfofthesettlementproceeds,or$112,500,andtheNewtonsreceived$112,500. Shortlyafterthesettlement,Newtonandhiswifeweredivorced.Inthefinaldivorcedecree,Newtonwasawardedthe$112,500insettlementproceedsashisseparateproperty,withtheexceptionof$15,000whichthedivorcecourtawardedtothewifeascompensationforherlossofconsortium.Duringthedivorceproceedings,NewtonlearnedthatthefeecontractsprovisiongivingCoxafiftypercent(50%)contingencyfeeviolatedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSec.2926120(1980), &   ׀whichlimitedcontingencyfeesinmedicalmalpracticecasestoonethird,or33@%.Consequently,Newtonbroughtthepresentactiontorecoverthe$37,500inexcessfeesretainedbyCox. Initially,thetrialcourtruledthatsection2926120wasunconstitutionalonvariousgroundsand,thus,refusedtoinvalidatethefeecontract.ThisCourtaffirmed,citingalternategroundsandfindingitunnecessarytoaddressCoxsconstitutionalchallengestothestatute. Newtonv.Cox ,No.02A019202CH00041,1992WL220189(Tenn.App.Sept.14,1992).̀ Onappeal,however,theSupremeCourtofTennesseereversedthisCourtsdecision.Upholdingtheconstitutionalityofsection2926120,thecourtheldthatthefeecontractprovidingfora50%contingencyfeewasvoidableasagainstpublicpolicy. Newtonv.Cox ,878S.W.2d105(Tenn.), cert.denied ,115S.Ct.189(1994). OnremandfromtheSupremeCourtsdecision,thetrialcourtawardedNewtonajudgmentfortheexcessfeeretainedbyCox.InsteadofawardingNewtonthefull$37,500,however,thetrialcourtreducedNewtonsrecoverybyonefourth,to$28,125,basedonCoxsargumentthatonefourthoftheexcessfeerightfullybelongedtoNewtonsformerwife,whowasalsoapartytothefeecontract.ThetrialcourtdeniedNewtonsrequestforprejudgmentinterest,andthisappealfollowed. Onappeal,Newtoncontendsthatthetrialcourterredinreducingthejudgmentto$28,125and,further,indenyingNewtonsclaimforprejudgmentinterest.WeagreethatthetrialcourterredinpermittingCoxtoretainonefourthofthe$37,500excesscontingencyfeebasedonthecourtsrulingthatthissharerepresentedtheinterestofNewtonsformerwife.TheSupremeCourtsdecisionin Newtonv.Cox ,878S.W.2d105(Tenn.), cert.denied ,115S.Ct.189(1994),confirmedthatNewtonhadtherighttovoidthefeecontractenteredintobytheparties. Id .at112.Whereapartytoacontractelectstotreatthecontractasvoidable,thepartystillmayseekrecoveryunderequitableprinciples,suchastheequitableremedyofrescissionorthequasicontractualtheoryofunjustenrichment. Vancev.Schulder ,547S.W.2d927,931(Tenn.1977); seealso  SKSCommunications,Inc.v.GlobeCommunications,Inc. ,No.03A019405CH00176,1994WL589576,at*5(Tenn.App.Oct.21,1994). Underthedoctrineofunjustenrichment, liabilitycanbecreatedwhereonepersonreceivesabenefitattheexpenseofanotheranditisunjustorinequitableforhimtoretainthisbenefit. Jaffev.Bolton ,817S.W.2d19,26(Tenn.App.1991).Weconcludethat,regardlessofanyspeculativeinterestthatNewtonsformerspousemayhavehadinthesettlementproceeds,itwouldbeinequitabletopermitCoxtoretainthebenefitofthefeewhichhecollectedinexcessofthestatutorymaximum.Accordingly,weagreewithNewtonthathewasentitledtothefull$37,500inexcessfeessought,andwemodifythejudgmentaccordingly. CoxinsiststhatNewtonsformerwifeneverelectedtovoidthecontractastoherand,thus,thatCoxshouldbepermittedtoretainthewifesportionofthefee.Wenote,however,thatinthedivorceproceedings,Newtonwasawardedallbutasmallportionofthesettlementproceedsashisseparateproperty. Newtonv.Cox ,1992WL220189,at*2.Atthisjuncture,therefore,itisquestionablewhetherNewtonsformerwifehasanyremaininginterestinthesettlementproceeds.Moreover,webelievethecriticalquestioninthiscasetobewho,asbetweenCoxandNewton,shouldbeentitledtotheexcessfee.Viewingthematterinthislight,weremainconvincedthatequityrequiresawardingthefundstoNewton. Wedecline,however,todisturbthetrialcourtsrulingdenyingNewtonsclaimforprejudgmentinterest.Theawardofprejudgmentinterestiswithinthetrialcourtsdiscretion. InreEstateofCooper ,689S.W.2d870,872(Tenn.App.1985).Wheretheamountofthedefendantsobligationiscertainandnotdisputedonreasonablegrounds,thetrialcourt mayallowprejudgmentinterestinaccordancewithprinciplesofequity. Mitchellv.Mitchell ,876S.W.2d830,832(Tenn.1994). AlthoughtheamountofCoxsobligation, i.e. ,theexcesscontingencyfeeretained,wasalwayscertaininthiscase,wecannotconcludethatCoxsdisputeofthisobligationwasunreasonable.Twocourts,includingthetrialcourtandthisCourt,initiallyruledinfavorofCoxwhenhedisputedhislegalobligationtopaytheexcessfeetoNewton.Accordingly,thetrialcourtonremanddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingNewtonsrequestforprejudgmentinterest. Nevertheless,inasmuchasadecisionoftheappellatecourtreversingthetrialcourtsjudgmentisgivenretroactiveeffecttothedateoftheoriginaljudgment, '   ׀weconcludethatNewtonisentitledtopostjudgmentinterestatthestatutoryratefromthedateoftheoriginaljudgmententeredinthiscase. See  Gottenv.Gotten ,748S.W.2d430,431(Tenn.App.1987); AceIndus.v.MastercraftBoatCo. ,No.02A019311CH00249,1995WL256758,at*5(Tenn.App.May3,1995), perm.app.dismissed (Tenn.Oct.2,1995);T.C.A.4714121,122(1988);T.R.A.P.41. Asmodified,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.Thiscauseisremandedfortheentryofajudgmentconsistentwiththisopinion,saidjudgmenttoincludepostjudgmentinterestasmandatedbystatute.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoAppelleeCox,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X _______________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)