Neblett v. Getty

California Court of Appeal Mar 30, 1937 No. Civ. 11135Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an attorney wrongfully discharged by a client before the completion of a contract may sue for the reasonable value of services rendered on a quantum meruit basis, even if the original contract stipulated payment would come from a third party.

Issues

Whether a contract for legal services existed between the plaintiffs and the wife.
Whether the wife's discharge of her attorneys without cause rendered her liable for the reasonable value of their services.
Whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants.

Disposition. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The wife had the power to discharge the plaintiffs as her attorneys under section 2356 of the Civil Code, but this power thus to terminate the relationship must not be confused with the right to do so.”

“If the wife without justifiable grounds prevented the completion of the plaintiffs’ services by discharging them, she would be liable to the plaintiffs for the reasonable value of the services rendered by them down to the date of their discharge.”

[67]

GRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment entered after a directed verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, disregarding conflicting evidence, giving plaintiffs’ evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn therefrom

(Mairo

Yellow Cab Co.,

208 Cal. 350 [281 Pac. 66]), the following is a statement of the case:

On April 1, 1935, Helen Ann Rork Getty, one of the defendants, hereinafter called the wife, called on plaintiffs and asked them to represent her as her attorneys in the marital difficulties between herself and her husband, Jean Paul Getty. Plaintiffs represented her from that date to September 17, 1935, and during that period devoted themselves to conferences, the gathering of evidence, the preparation of pleadings and- to court appearances for the protection of the rights of the wife and her two children. Conferences were held by plaintiffs with the attorneys for the husband, both in Los Angeles and in New York. Finally, Mrs. Getty instructed plaintiffs to file in California a complaint for divorce, which was done on May 27, 1935. The husband was not within the jurisdiction of the state, but the wife alleged in her complaint that certain corporations were the

alter egos

of the husband and joined them as defendants, and alleged that they were the mere instrumentalities or conduits through which the husband held the property belonging to the community and conducted the husband’s business, and that said corporations were therefore obligated for support and maintenance and attorneys’ fees and costs pending the determination of the divorce action. All of the corporate defendants answered to the complaint for divorce.

From time to time orders to show cause were issued by the trial court against the defendant corporations with regard to maintenance. Hearings were had and orders made requiring the corporations to pay certain sums for the support and maintenance of the wife and children. A total of $13,000 attorneys’ fees and $4,500 costs was so ordered to be paid under section 137 of the Civil Code and was paid by one of the alleged

Neblett v. Getty

AI Brief

GRAIL, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief