MICHAEL W. STRICKLAND &
ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
Plaintiff,
v
.
Wake County
No. 00 CVD 13910
TANYA ABOUL-HOSN,
Defendant.
Strickland, Harris & Hilton, P.A., by Nelson G. Harris, for
plaintiff-appellant.
Powell & Axford, by Chad E. Axford, for defendant-appellee.
LEVINSON, Judge.
Strickland, Harris & Hilton, P.A. (plaintiff) appeals from an
order dismissing its claims and vacating a judgment against
defendant Tanya Aboul-Hosn. We reverse.
In March 1998, defendant hired the plaintiff law firm
according to a contingency fee contract. After plaintiff completed
approximately ninety percent of the work necessary to settle
defendant's claim, defendant fired plaintiff in September 1999 and
hired the law firm of Wilson & Waller as replacement counsel.
Wilson & Waller settled defendant's personal injury claim for
$59,500 in December 1999. Defendant did not pay plaintiff for the
legal services it provided to her. The trial court awarded plaintiff a judgement of $18,438.35
with interest, which represented ninety percent of one-third of
plaintiff's recovery and costs. However, the trial court later set
aside this judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claim, concluding
that plaintiff did not sue the proper party for recovery in quantum
meruit. Plaintiff appeals.
The trial court vacated its judgment for plaintiff after
concluding [t]he plaintiff in this matter should have sought to
recover the reasonable value of his services from the attorney
and/or firm [Wilson & Waller] who achieved the final disposition on
behalf of this Defendant in her personal injury action. However,
this Court recently held that a discharged law firm has a viable
claim in North Carolina in quantum meruit against the former client
or its subsequent representative for payment. Guess v. Parrott,
___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 585 S.E.2d 464, 468 (2003). The trial
court erred when it concluded that plaintiff could only recover
payment from Wilson & Waller, the subsequent law firm, and could
not seek payment from defendant, its former client. Accordingly,
the trial court's order vacating the judgment for plaintiff is
Reversed.
Judges HUNTER and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***