Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc v. Jabbour ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS,                                           FOR PUBLICATION
    P.L.L.C.,                                                            July 30, 2015
    9:00 a.m.
    Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-
    Appellant,
    v                                                                    No. 320291
    Oakland Circuit Court
    PETER JABBOUR,                                                       LC No. 2012-128121-CK
    Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-
    Appellee.
    Before: WILDER, P.J., and SHAPIRO and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary disposition
    and grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant. Defendant was appointed by the trial
    court to a receivership to oversee certain businesses involved in an underlying lawsuit; as part of
    his receivership, he retained plaintiff to perform legal services in connection with the
    receivership. The receivership appointment order specified that the receivership estate was to
    pay the receiver’s fees and expenses, including compensating plaintiff. However, the parties to
    the underlying lawsuit settled and, despite being ordered to do so, never paid the entirety of
    plaintiff’s fees. Plaintiff commenced the instant suit against defendant personally, which the trial
    court deemed impermissible. We affirm.
    The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo on
    appeal. Oliver v Smith, 
    290 Mich. App. 678
    , 683; 810 NW2d 57 (2010).
    A party who retains attorneys such as plaintiff would, of course, ordinarily be obligated
    to compensate those attorneys pursuant to their contract. However, an agent who contracts with
    a third party on behalf of a disclosed principal is generally not liable to the third party in the
    absence of an express agreement to be held liable. Nat’l Trout Festival, Inc v Cannon, 32 Mich
    App 517, 521; 189 NW2d 69 (1971); Huizenga v Withey Sheppard Assoc, 
    15 Mich. App. 628
    ,
    633; 167 NW2d 120 (1969). A court-appointed receiver is an officer or agent of the court. In re
    Kennison Sales & Engineering Co, Inc, 
    363 Mich. 612
    , 618; 110 NW2d 579 (1961). The order
    of appointment explicitly so states. In accord is authority stating:
    -1-
    One who contracts with the court through the receiver becomes, in effect,
    a party to the receivership proceedings in respect of the court’s future dealings
    with him or her and his or her rights under the contract. [75 CJS, Receivers, §
    165, pp 509-510.]
    Similarly:
    The general rule is that an allowance of attorney fees in cases of this
    nature is properly made to the receiver and not directly to the attorneys, and that
    the attorneys must look to the receiver for their compensation, but they cannot
    hold the receiver personally liable. [65 Am Jur 2d, Receivers, § 225, pp 780-
    781.]
    The parties’ contract in this case explicitly and unambiguously stated that all legal services were
    being performed pursuant to defendant’s appointment by the trial court as receiver. There is no
    plausible dispute that defendant was lawfully acting within the scope of his receivership
    authority at all relevant times and that plaintiff was aware of that fact.
    Defendant did agree that plaintiff is entitled to be paid. However, the evidence shows
    that defendant did not concede that he was obligated to make that payment personally. Plaintiff
    apparently believes that defendant’s concession established an account stated. See Fisher Sand
    & Gravel Co v Neal A Sweebe, Inc, 
    494 Mich. 543
    , 554-555; 837 NW2d 244 (2013) (explaining
    that an open account is converted into an account stated when the parties agree to a sum due
    from one to another). Defendant did not agree that he owed the sum; only that plaintiff was
    owed it. In any event, defendant’s alleged liability is predicated on the agreement to pay for
    services rendered to him as receiver under the retainer agreement and, as discussed above,
    defendant is not personally liable for those services.
    The trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant and properly
    denied summary disposition to plaintiff. In light of our conclusion that defendant cannot be held
    personally liable for the amount due plaintiff on these facts, we need not address the remaining
    issues plaintiff raises on appeal. Affirmed.
    /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
    /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
    /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Docket 320291

Judges: Wilder, Shapiro, Krause

Filed Date: 7/30/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2024