 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Runyon v. Sortland5/17/2005
Appellant asserted the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction in response to respondent's claim for the remaining balance of an unpaid bill. The district court concluded that there was no accord and satisfaction and additionally held that respondent explicitly reserved the right to sue for full payment. Appellant argues that the district court erred by concluding there was no accord and satisfaction and that respondent reserved the right to sue. Because we find no error, we affirm.
FACTS
In October 2002, appellant-attorney Paul Sortland hired respondent Karen Runyon, a forensic document examiner, to examine medical records in a medical-malpractice case. On April 2, 2003, appellant gave respondent the original medical records, and respondent examined the documents on April 4, 9, and 11. Respondent met with appellant to discuss her findings and subsequently prepared corresponding exhibits. On April 15, 2003, respondent closed her file, returned the original medical records, and billed appellant for $2,062.50 ($2,562.50 minus a $500 retainer fee). The bill stated, "My billing practice is to await payment of one statement prior to further requests for casework."
On April 16, 2003, appellant sent respondent a letter stating, "The billing seems appropriate and we will see that that is paid in the near future." Appellant also requested a written report from respondent in the April 16 letter. On April 22, 2003, appellant phoned respondent and inquired when the written report would be finished. Respondent reminded appellant that she required payment of the existing bill before doing further work. On May 1, 2003, respondent received a phone message from appellant indicating that appellant's case was going to trial that day and requesting that respondent immediately fax a written report to his office. Later that morning, appellant's secretary left another phone message with respondent indicating that the April 15 bill had been paid on April 22. Respondent sent a letter by certified mail stating that she had not received the payment.
In August 2003, appellant sent respondent a letter stating that he had stopped payment on the April 22 check that he allegedly sent and enclosed a new $1,000 check marked "Payment in Full." Appellant explained in the letter,
As you are aware, we were not able to utilize your testimony in this matter, because the report was not submitted on a timely basis. Consequently, [my client] lost her lawsuit . . . .
I understand you did some work on this matter. We did pay you $500.00. Please keep in mind that none of your work did [my client] any good. In an effort to resolve this, however, [my client] has authorized me to pay approximately half of the outstanding balance, or $1,000.00, as payment in full. Otherwise, she has asked me to try to fight the outstanding bill for the reasons stated above.
|