Opinion
13-P-1862
10-16-2014
RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, v. MARBA CORPORATION & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP (RFF), appeals from an order of the Superior Court directing it to pay $99,720 to Richard R. Erricola, the receiver appointed by that court to wind up the defendants' affairs. On appeal, RFF claims that Erricola's quantum meruit claim must fail because RFF was not aware, and could not have reasonably been aware, that Erricola would incur fees in excess of the originally agreed amount. We affirm.
The defendants' most significant asset was the Irish Times restaurant and bar in Worcester. The luck of the Irish Times ran out when RFF foreclosed on the defendants' mortgage and the restaurant closed.
1. The judge's factual findings. RFF claims that it was unaware of the extent of Erricola's work in reopening and managing the Irish Times, and that the judge's findings to the contrary were based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.
We review the judge's factual findings for clear error. Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620 (1992). Here, the judge found that: Erricola agreed to accept $1,000 per week to wind up the defendants' affairs, which included the temporary administration of an operational business; RFF asked Erricola to perform the "enormous" task of reopening, repairing, and managing the Irish Times, which by then had closed and was in total disrepair; none of this work was originally contemplated at the time of Erricola's initial discussions with Frank Kirby, RFF's principal; RFF was aware "at all times" of the extent of Erricola's additional work; and Erricola had made Kirby as well as other representatives of RFF aware that he (Erricola) would expect compensation for his additional time.
Erricola testified that "I told [Kirby] that at some point we needed to discuss my fees because I was in here . . . under a way different job tha[n] I had originally anticipated." According to Erricola, Kirby then responded he would need to contact RFF's attorney to find out what would be appropriate.
Each of the judge's findings was adequately supported by evidence in the record. The record contained Erricola's time records which credibly document the time he spent managing the restaurant. Erricola also testified in detail about his initial negotiations with RFF, his subsequent work at the Irish Times, and conversations with Kirby and others about the expanded scope of his work and expectation of appropriate compensation for that work. Kirby, however, denied remembering any discussion about compensation at all. Where Kirby's testimony conflicted with Erricola's, it was the province of the judge to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, as he did. See Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411, 421 (2005) ("Where the resolution of a factual dispute turns on the credibility of the witnesses, as this surely did, . . . we accord particular deference to the judge's findings"). There was no error.
Due to health issues, Kirby was unavailable to testify at the evidentiary hearing. Portions of his deposition were introduced at the hearing.
In his findings of fact, the judge said that the court "does not fully credit [Kirby's testimony]."
2. Erricola's quantum meruit claim. Having discerned no error in the judge's factual findings, it remains only for us to consider whether the judge abused his discretion in applying the appropriate legal standard. The facts here amply support the conclusion that Erricola was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for his work at the Irish Times.
Throughout its brief, RFF points out that Erricola's submitted fees were "three times greater than the agreed to fee." That fact, by itself, is of no import where RFF requested that Erricola perform services of at least that value. RFF does not contest that Erricola diligently attended to his duties or that it did not receive fair value for that work.
--------
As both parties correctly note in their briefs, "[t]o achieve recovery upon the theory of quantum meruit, the claimant must prove (1) that it conferred a measurable benefit upon the defendants; (2) that the claimant reasonably expected compensation from the defendants; and (3) that the defendants accepted the benefit with the knowledge, actual or chargeable, of the claimant's reasonable expectation." Finard & Co., LLC v. Sitt Asset Mgmt., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 226, 229 (2011). RFF agrees that Erricola conferred a benefit on RFF and it does not contest the value of his services. What RFF contests is whether Erricola was reasonable in expecting compensation for his additional work, and whether RFF was on notice or could reasonably have been charged with notice of Erricola's expectation.
It was reasonable for Erricola to expect to be compensated for the additional services he provided beyond the original receivership terms at the request of RFF. Despite RFF's insistence that it lacked notice of both Erricola's additional work and his expectation to be paid for that work, the judge found otherwise. Accordingly, because RFF did have notice that compensation for Erricola's work would be required, RFF's acceptance of his services justifies Erricola recovering his reasonable fees. See ibid. The judge did not abuse his discretion in so ruling.
Order dated March 9, 2012, affirmed.
By the Court (Grasso, Kantrowitz & Meade, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: October 16, 2014.