THOMAS J. ROMANS, ESQ v. VILONA T. MASTBETH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

THOMAS J. ROMANS, ESQ.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VILONA T. MASTBETH,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________

September 22, 2015 2012015 2015

Argued August 11, 2015 Decided

Before Judges O'Connor and Rothstadt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. DC-18490-13.

Thomas Simeti argued the cause for appellant.

Thomas J. Romans argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Following a bench trial in the Special Civil part, the trial court entered judgment for $15,057 in favor of plaintiff Thomas J. Romans, Esq. and against defendant Vilona T. Mastbeth for unpaid legal fees. The trial court found defendant liable to plaintiff on a theory of quantum meruit. On June 6, 2014, the court denied defendant s motion for reconsideration of the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment and the June 6, 2014 order contending, among other things, that plaintiff did not prove a cause of action for quantum meruit. After reviewing the record and the applicable legal principles, we reverse.

According to plaintiff's complaint, in 2008 defendant requested plaintiff to represent her in a trespass action pertaining to property defendant owned in Warren County, New York. Plaintiff advised defendant of his hourly rate and, in December 2009, defendant paid plaintiff a retainer of $5,000. Plaintiff performed work for defendant and, in August 2010, defendant paid plaintiff an additional retainer of $5,000.

In October 2010, plaintiff forwarded a retainer agreement to defendant but she failed to sign it. At the same time, plaintiff also forwarded an invoice to defendant for services rendered; defendant paid the invoice in full.

In July 2011, plaintiff again sent defendant a retainer agreement but she did not sign it. In December 2012, plaintiff forwarded defendant an invoice for $15,891.60 and, in March 2013, sent another invoice for $10,640.78. Although defendant paid an additional $9,600 to plaintiff, she failed to pay the balance due of $16,932.38.

On May 21, 2013, plaintiff forwarded defendant a Rule 1:20A-6 pre-action notice explaining she had the right to request fee arbitration. Defendant declined to seek arbitration and, on August 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Law Division, Special Civil Part. Although by that time defendant owed plaintiff costs and counsel fees that totaled $17,142.38, in recognition of the jurisdictional limit of the Special Civil part, see Rule 6:1-2(a)(1) (limiting claims cognizable in the Special Civil Part to those in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000), plaintiff indicated in his complaint that he sought only $15,000 from defendant, plus the costs and fees incurred to prosecute his action.

During the bench trial, plaintiff's complaint and bill for $17,142.38 were admitted into evidence. He testified he expended his "best efforts" in the matter and never charged for the several trips he made to Warren County, New York, to prosecute defendant's action, even though the trip was three hours each way. However, there was no evidence about whether the value of the services plaintiff provided was reasonable. Other than assert she never entered into a contract with plaintiff, defendant failed to testify to any matter of substance.

The trial court found that plaintiff proved he was entitled to be compensated for his fee of $15,000 under a theory of quantum meruit. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff advised defendant of his hourly fee and that he "did all this work" and, thus, it would be inequitable to excuse defendant from compensating plaintiff merely because she refused to sign the retainer agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $15,000, plus a filing fee of $57.00. Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the judgment was denied on June 6, 2014.

On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that plaintiff not only failed to plead a cause of action for quantum meruit in his complaint, but also failed to prove all of the elements of this cause of action.

First, we are satisfied that defendant was on notice plaintiff sought to recover on the basis of quantum meruit. When reviewing a pleading to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, a court must search "'the complaint in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim . . . .'" Velop, Inc. v. Kaplan, 301 N.J. Super. 32, 56 (App. Div.)(quoting Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Mem'l Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957) certif. granted, 152 N.J. 9 (1997), appeal dismissed, 153 N.J. 45 (1998)). Here, the complaint fairly apprises defendant that plaintiff sought to be compensated for services rendered to defendant that were not performed gratuitously. See Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 105, 108-09 (App. Div. 1966) (holding quantum meruit is a form of quasi-contractual recovery that rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another).

The next issue is whether plaintiff proved a cause of action for quantum meruit. To prevail on a claim for quantum meruit, an attorney must demonstrate that the former client would be unjustly enriched by the receipt and retention of a benefit without compensation, where the attorney, in conferring the benefit, expected to be paid. Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc., 297 N.J. Super. 353, 367 (App. Div. 1997) (citing Cohen v. Home Ins. Co., 230 N.J. Super. 72, 82 (App. Div. 1989)). The specific elements a plaintiff must establish are: "(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services." Starkey v. Estate of Nicolaysen, 172 N.J. 60, 68 (2002) (quoting Longo v. Shore & Reich, Ltd., 25 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Although there is sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy the first three elements, there is no evidence establishing that the value of the services rendered was reasonable. Moreover, the trial court failed to make a finding about the value of the services and whether or not they were reasonable. Because plaintiff failed to prove the fourth element, he did not show he was entitled to recover fees on the basis of quantum meruit.

Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the judgment awarding plaintiff $15,057. In light of our disposition, we need not address defendant s remaining arguments.

Reversed.