Opinion ID: 1835519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether atco should be required to pay the reasonable costs of collection

Text: ¶ 19. The standard for review of the award of attorneys' fees is abuse of discretion, and such awards must be supported by credible evidence. Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Jenkins, 678 So.2d 95, 103 (Miss.1995). ¶ 20. Ellis argues the Chancellor erred in determining Ellis could not recover attorneys' fees from the interpleaded funds. ¶ 21. Ellis's attorneys assert they have a lien on the interpleaded funds awarded to ATCO in the amount of one-third of the $100,000 based on their one-third contingency fee agreement with Ellis. The Chancellor found Ellis's attorneys would be entitled to a contingency fee only when Ellis received a recovery. Because there was no recovery by Ellis, her attorneys were not entitled to any portion of the $100,000 in interpleaded funds. ¶ 22. The Chancellor based her decision on this Court's holding in Magee v. Smith, 639 So.2d 1258 (Miss.1994). In Magee, we stated in the context of a contingency fee contract, if there is no recovery for the client, there is no basis for a contingency fee award. Magee, 639 So.2d at 1261. Citing Reid v. Johnson, 106 So.2d 624, 627 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1958), we further stated the burden is upon the attorney to establish clearly the contract under which he is entitled to retain his client's money as fees. Id. ¶ 23. The Chancellor correctly reasoned because Ellis had yet to recover any money for Griffin, the contingency on which the contract was basedrecoveryhad not occurred. With no recovery, Ellis's attorney's rights had not vested. See Tyson v. Moore, 613 So.2d 817, 824 (Miss.1992) (holding reasonable interpretation of contingency fee contract would be attorney's right to recover cannot vest until recovery). ¶ 24. The Chancellor also found Ellis's attorneys were not entitled to any recovery under a quantum meruit or unjust enrichment theory. We have found quantum meruit is a possible method for determining attorneys' fees. Duggins v. Guardianship of Washington, 632 So.2d 420, 431 (Miss.1993). In order for a quantum meruit award to be proper, the claimant must have a reasonable expectation of payment for services. The claimant's measure of recovery is the reasonable value of the services. Estate of Johnson v. Adkins, 513 So.2d 922, 926 (Miss.1987). ¶ 25. To collect under an unjust enrichment or quasi-contract theory, the claimant must show there is no legal contract but ... the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain, but should deliver to another. Estate of Johnson, 513 So.2d at 926 (quoting Hans v. Hans 482 So.2d 1117, 1122 (Miss.1986)). ¶ 26. The Chancellor found ATCO acted within a reasonable time to lay claim to the funds. In doing so, ATCO acted by and through an attorney to protect its rights and did not rely on the work of Ellis's attorneys. For these reasons the Chancellor found Ellis's attorneys did not have either a quantum meruit or quasi-contract claim to a portion of the interpleaded funds. ¶ 27. The Chancellor's findings are well supported by the record and we find the Chancellor did not abuse her discretion in refusing to award Ellis's attorneys a portion of the interpleaded funds as attorneys' fees. This assignment has no merit.