Opinion ID: 1852109
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether an action for quantum meruit is an action at law.

Text: ¶ 13. Traditionally, in Mississippi, courts of equity have jurisdiction over quantum meruit suits involving attorney-client contingent fees. For example, in Pannell v. Guess, 671 So.2d 1310, 1315 (Miss.1996), the case was remanded for the chancellor to examine the reasonableness of the contingent fee, restructure the percentage of recovery if necessary, and assess a fee based on quantum meruit. See also Duggins v. Guardianship of Washington, 632 So.2d 420, 431 (Miss. 1993); Tyson v. Moore, 613 So.2d 817 (Miss.1992). Indeed, in In re Estate of Stewart, 732 So.2d 255 (Miss.1999), the Court stated as follows: Recovery in quantum meruit is a remedy based in contract that is premised on either [an][sic] express or `implied' contract. The findings by the chancellor and the record support the conclusion that Logan & Bise rendered legal services at the request of Stewart with the expectation of payment. In such cases, the law implies a contract to pay for said services. Where the recovery is based in quantum meruit, the amount of recovery is limited to the monetary equivalent of the reasonable value of the services rendered to the decedent for which payment has not been tendered. Id. at 259 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). So the Court, in one paragraph, stated that, even though a quantum meruit case supposes an implied contract, suit for the breach of which are usually brought in circuit court, a chancellor is to determine whether such an implied contract exists and, if breached, what the damages might be. ¶ 14. Poole directs the Court's attention to Webb v. B.C. Rogers Poultry, Inc., 174 F.3d 697 (5th Cir.1999), where a divided Fifth Circuit panel held that a quantum meruit action, although equitable in nature, is in fact an action at law due to the fact that it seeks money damages. Id. at 704-05. However, we adhere to our own long-held precedent for the more persuasive reasons in the dissent of Judge Politz in Webb: Given the [United States] Supreme Court's historical emphasis, it is my perception that the focus should be upon the origin of the relief and its position at the time the federal judicial system was created, not how the cause of action has since evolved. The roots of quantum meruit are in the courts of equity; claims for quantum meruit appeared in those courts before the cause of action could be pursued at law. Claims for quantum meruit were pursued in the courts of equity at the birth of our judicial system. Thus, despite some indications, historically speaking, that quantum meruit was a legal cause of action, I am not prepared to dispositively rule that quantum meruit is a legal cause of action. Id. at 706-07 (footnotes omitted). ¶ 15. We find that quantum meruit claims are equitable in nature and should be brought in the chancery court.