That principle extends beyond real estate transactions and applies in a variety of situations to avoid unjust enrichment. (See e.g., Bird v. Kenworthy, 43 Cal.2d 656 [ 277 P.2d 1]; Begovich v. Murphy, 359 Mich. 156 [ 101 N.W.2d 278].) Although plaintiff grounded his claim for restitution on fraud, the facts pleaded and proved, his demand for relief, and the issues stated in the pretrial order entitled him to restitution.
Unlike Nahan, this case does not involve an interest in land and therefore, the statute of frauds is not applicable. Generally, under Michigan law, "in the absence of express contractual terms for legal compensation, the Michigan courts have followed the rule of implying a contract for legal services for the reasonable value of the service rendered." Begovich v. Murphy, 359 Mich. 156, 159 (1960) (citing Eggleston v. Boardman, 37 Mich. 14 (1877); In re Freshour's Estate, 174 Mich. 114 (1913); Crary v. Goldsmith, 322 Mich. 418 (1948)). At oral argument, counsel for Chachoua argued that California law applies to this case and that under a California statute, a retainer for over $1000 must be in writing.
An agreement for delivery of legal services for a fixed fee may provide that certain portions of the fee are "earned" by the lawyer based upon the passage of time, the completion of certain tasks, or any other basis mutually agreed upon by the lawyer and client.See also Begovich v. Murphy, 359 Mich. 156, 101 N.W.2d 278 (1960); Maljak v. Murphy, 385 Mich. 210, 188 N.W.2d 539 (1971); In re Daggs, 384 Mich. 729, 187 N.W.2d 227 (1971). These authorities make the point clear that Hill was required to deposit the retainer that he received from the debtor into his client trust account, that his failure to do so was improper under Michigan law, and that under the Bankruptcy Code, he was not permitted to draw on the retainer until the Court awarded fees to Hill pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330 and § 331.
The trial court reasoned that by committing suicide the deceased had breached his express contract, and therefore, the administrator was barred from recovery. This Court in Begovich v. Murphy (1960), 359 Mich. 156, reversed, finding that the lower court record did not support the finding of an express contract, but rather that plaintiff's declaration sought repayment of funds advanced on an implied contract. On February 1, 1963 trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff-administrator in the amount of $4,000.
Thus, by committing suicide the deceased had breached his express contract, and therefore, the administrator was barred from recovery. Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court which in Begovich v. Murphy (1960), 359 Mich. 156, reversed the lower court. The Supreme Court found that the lower court record did not support the finding of an express contract, but rather, that plaintiff's declaration sought repayment of funds advanced on an implied contract. Thus, the matter was reversed and remanded for trial.