Dudding v. Frickey Associates

83 Citing cases

  1. Hannon Law Firm v. Melat

    293 P.3d 55 (Colo. App. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Applying section 13-80-108 and recognizing that a cause of action generally accrues when a suit may be maintained thereon

    Quantum meruit " is a theory of contract recovery that invokes an implied contract when the parties either have no express contract or have abrogated it." Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo.2000). Section 13-80-108(6), C.R.S.2010, provides that a cause of action for " breach of any express or implied contract" accrues " on the date the breach is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence."

  2. In re Gilbert

    346 P.3d 1018 (Colo. 2015)   Cited 12 times

    ¶ 21 Quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine that invokes an implied contract where the parties either have no express contract or have abrogated it. See Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo.2000). The doctrine does not depend on the existence of a contract, either express or implied in fact, but rather applies where a need arises to avoid unjust enrichment to a party in the absence of an actual agreement to pay for the services rendered.

  3. Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C.

    287 P.3d 842 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that an attorney may recover the reasonable value of services provided to former co-counsel under a theory of quantum meruit

    Whether Hannon justifiably withdrew from representation affects the merits of its quantum meruit claim but does not affect our analysis here. See Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 446 (Colo.2000). Williams also withdrew from representation prior to trial.

  4. People v. Gilbert

    348 P.3d 970 (Colo. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Id.Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo.2000).In the context of flat fee agreements, the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized time and again that “[u]pon discharge, ... [an] attorney may be entitled to quantum meruit recovery for the services that the attorney rendered and for costs incurred on behalf of the client.”

  5. Mullens v. Hansel-Henderson

    65 P.3d 992 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing "When a contract fails, equity steps in to prevent one party from taking advantage of another. Quantum meruit, founded upon the principle of equity, exists to prevent unjust enrichment"; and, thus, "[Q]uantum meruit is generally allowed for unenforceable fee agreements"

    In this contingent attorney's fees case, a client sought return of fees paid for representation in a Bad Faith claim, where the agreed upon legal services were successfully completed but the fee agreement was not in writing. Relying on Dudding v. Norton Frickey Assoc., 11 P.3d 441 (Colo. 2000), the court of appeals decided that the representing attorney must return fees earned during representation in claims against a former employer because the underlying contingent fee agreement was unenforceable and recovery under quantum meruit was unavailable. The supreme court reversed.

  6. Estate of McClain v. Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP

    554 P.3d 29 (Colo. App. 2024)

    ¶ 53 In Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates, 11 P.3d 441 (Colo. 2000), the supreme court recognized that when a contingent fee agreement is unenforceable, the attorney can still recover under quantum meruit provided the agreement informed the client of that possibility through a valid conversion clause. Id. at 443.

  7. In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. Marketing & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.

    288 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D.N.M. 2017)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that a package's disclosure did not cure a "deception inflicted upon a reasonable consumer" when "it is not clear that [reasonable consumers] would have the opportunity to inspect" the product before purchasing

    "A benefit denotes any form of advantage." Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo. 2000). "The notion of what is or is not unjust is an inherently malleable and unpredictable standard."

  8. Cypress Advisors, Inc. v. Davis

    Civil Action No. 16-cv-01935-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Jul. 21, 2017)

    Indeed, the Colorado Supreme Court has stated that, "[a]pplication of the doctrine of quantum meruit, also termed quasi-contract or unjust enrichment, does not depend on the existence of a contract, either express of implied in fact." Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo. 2000). Because Davis' two claims assert the same cause of action, they are duplicative and subject to dismissal.

  9. Davis v. St. Anselm Exploration Co.

    No. 10-CV-883 KG/WPL (D.N.M. Oct. 8, 2015)

    30. Quasi-contract is a "theory of contract recovery that invokes an implied contract when the parties either have no express contract or have abrogated it." Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 444 (Colo. 2000). Quasi-contract, also known as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, "does not depend upon the existence of a contract, either express or implied in fact.

  10. Pulte Home Corp. v. Countryside Cmty. Ass'n, Inc.

    382 P.3d 821 (Colo. 2016)   Cited 46 times
    Stating that a claim for unjust enrichment is generally unavailable when the underlying payment obligation is subject to an express contract

    ¶64 A party generally cannot recover for unjust enrichment, however, where there is an express contract addressing the subject of the alleged obligation to pay. See Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 445 (Colo. 2000) ; see also Interbank Invs., LLC v. Eagle River Water & Sanitation Dist., 77 P.3d 814, 816 (Colo. App. 2003) (“[A] party cannot recover for unjust enrichment by asserting a quasi-contract when an express contract covers the same subject matter because the express contract precludes any implied-in-law contract.”). Colorado appellate courts have recognized only two exceptions to this rule—a party may still recover for unjust enrichment when (1) the express contract fails or is rescinded, see Dudding, 11 P.3d at 445, or (2) the claim covers matters that are outside of or arose after the contract, see Interbank, 77 P.3d at 816.