McIntosh v. Cozean

634 S.W.2d 264
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1982·No. No. 44602·Published

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

The probate division of the circuit court allowed plaintiff’s $681.50 claim for legal services rendered the estate of Fannie Ad-ers, an incompetent. The estate appeals.

Plaintiff-attorney had filed suit in the circuit court on behalf of the ward’s administrator and her heirs. Its purpose was to set aside a deed executed by Fannie Aders to her sister, Clarissa Green. After plaintiff had filed the suit Ms. Green voluntarily conveyed the land to defendant administrator who sold it for $11,000.

In the beginning plaintiff had been consulted by Lloyd Ball, the incompetent’s brother. Other siblings of Fannie Aders joined Lloyd Ball in his aim to file suit in the circuit court to set aside the deed from Fannie Aders to her sister Clarissa Green. Lloyd Ball had initially paid plaintiff a $500 retainer fee and plaintiff credited this on his $1,181.50 charge for services.

The key to plaintiff’s probate claim lies in the defendant estate’s express consent for plaintiff to file the suit to set aside the incompetent’s deed. This was by letter to [265]*265plaintiff from the administrator’s counsel, set out in the margin.1

Here, defendant challenges allowance of plaintiff’s claim “without any agreement on the part of the estate to pay for such services”.

The principle of quantum meruit refutes defendant’s contention. In Upshaw v. Latham, 486 S.W.2d 656[1, 2] (Mo.App.1972) we held: “the law presumes an intention on the part of the person rendering valuable services at another’s request to charge therefor, and implies a promise to pay the reasonable value thereof on the part of the person receiving such services, which may be recovered on quantum meruit.” This was followed in Hayden v. First Community State Bank, Etc., 575 S.W.2d 880 [5-7] (Mo.App.1978).

Defendant expressly authorized plaintiff to sue to set aside the incompetent’s deed to her sister. He did so. The trial court properly allowed plaintiff a fee; the amount thereof is not challenged. Plaintiff was entitled to the judgment rendered.

Affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McIntosh v. Cozean, 634 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

634 S.W.2d 264 (McIntosh v. Cozean) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Upshaw v. Latham
486 S.W.2d 656 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1972)
Hayden v. First Community State Bank of Savannah
575 S.W.2d 880 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)