This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Breach of Contract
Legal Services
Bonus Monies

Ross M. Mehl v. Estate of Jerrold A. Fadem (decedent)

Published: Aug. 24, 1996 | Result Date: Jun. 19, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC125901 –  $0

Judge

Paul G. Flynn

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ross Mehl


Defendant

Heather Appleton


Facts

From 1981 through 1984, Jerrold A. Fadem represented plaintiff Ross M. Mehl and his wife in an inverse condemnation action involving the City of Industry. The plaintiff signed a retainer agreement with Fadem's law firm, Fadem, Berger & Norton, a Professional Corporation (FBN), awarding a five percent bonus of all amounts gained by settlement or verdict in excess of $1.25 million. The parties in that lawsuit settled, mid-trial, for $1,851,776. When FBN billed the plaintiff for the performance bonus, the plaintiff disputed the amount. In its final invoice to the plaintiff, FBN reduced the bonus from $30,089 to $15,000. The plaintiff paid the invoice. In 1994, Fadem died and defendant Sidney R. Rose was appointed the executor of Fadem's will. The law firm subsequently dissolved. When the plaintiff received notice of these occurrences, he made a claim to the law firm's receiver for return of a $7,500 bonus. After the claim was rejected, the plaintiff made a claim to Fadem's estate for return of the $15,000 bonus. When the executor rejected the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff filed this civil action against the defendant Estate of Jerrold A. Fadem. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant estate based on a breach of contract theory of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The settlement discussions were not disclosed.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $15,000 in damages, plus $15,750 in interest.

Other Information

The decision was reached approximately one year and two months after the case was filed. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure º631.8 on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. In the alternative, the defendant's motion was based on the grounds that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of laches. The court granted the defendant's motion on the alternative grounds.

Length

4 hours


#113906

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390