 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Marquard & Associates6/10/2003
or [the defendant] to retain without paying for it." Ylijarvi v. Brockphaler, 213 Minn. 385, 393, 7 N.W.2d 314, 319 (1942). But a valid, enforceable contract between the parties precludes recovery under quantum meruit. Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog, 575 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing Sharp v. Laubersheimer, 347 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Minn. 1984)); see also United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Minn. State Zoological Bd., 307 N.W.2d 490, 497 (Minn. 1981) (stating that "equitable relief cannot be granted where the rights of the parties are governed by a valid contract"). Because we conclude that the employment agreement was enforceable, the doctrine of quantum meruit recovery is inapplicable here. The district court did nor err in concluding that "the [employment] agreement must supercede quantum meruit recovery."
Although Marquard urges us to apply the factors set out in In re L-tryptophan Cases, 518 N.W.2d 616, 621 (Minn. App. 1994), we have expressly held that, in circumstances such as these, the L-tryptophan factors are inapplicable. Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. v. Beens, 541 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1996) (stating that it "is not necessary to resort to the L-tryptophan factors when" an agreement exists "among the attorneys on how to split fees with departing attorneys"). Further, as the district court noted, enforcing the fee-splitting agreement, rather than resorting to equitable relief, is appropriate on public-policy grounds. Id. at 356.
Marquard impliedly argues that the retainer agreements with the Prebles should control the outcome of the fee-splitting agreement. But the retainer agreement governs attorney-fee matters between Marquard and the Prebles, not the parties in this action. The retainer agreement only addresses the Prebles' obligation to Marquard, not Mills's obligation to his former employer. Thus, the retainer agreement has no bearing on the issues in this case.
Affirmed.
|