Phil Watkins, P.C. v. The Krist Law Firm, P.C. Brief

Phil Watkins, P.C. v. The Krist Law Firm, P.C., 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 6693

Procedural History:

            Krist sued Watkins and the clients that Krist formerly represented because they did not pay Krist an amount that was previously settled for including fees and expenses.  The trial court found in favor for Krist based on a contract sent to Watkins from Krist.  Watkins then appealed the case.

Facts:

            Krist law firm represented two clients Sorrells and Sides in a case against DuPont for damages to their pecan orchards caused by Benlate fungicide manufactured by DuPont.  The reached a settlement where the plaintiff would receive $200 per affected acre owned.  The clients of Krist discharged after this settlement was reached without just cause.  The clients hired Watkins to represent them.  Watkins re-litigated the case and received a settlement larger than the one settled for previously by the Krist Law firm.  Krist sued Watkins and the clients for not paying him fees and expenses that were required according to the agreement sent by Krist to Watkins.

Issue:

1.      Was there consideration for the contract?

2.      Is the contract ambiguous?

Holding:

1.      Yes there was consideration for the contract because even though it wasn’t specifically stated the agreement showed that Krist was still asserting its rights to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses.

2.      Yes.  If an agreement is uncertain and doubtful in any way than the contract is ambiguous.

Rationale:

            City of Bunker Hill Village v. Memorial villages Water Auth., 809 S.W.2d 309, 310-311 (Tex. App. 1991) held that reversing summary judgment because the contracts in question were ambiguous and holding that agreement of parties that a contract is unambiguous does not proven an appellate court from finding ambiguity under the ordinary rules of contract construction.

            If a written instrument is so worded that it can be given a certain legal meaning, then it is not ambiguous and is construed as a matter of law. 

            Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 925 W.E.2d 565, 574 (Tex. 1996) found if a written instrument’s meaning is uncertain and doubtful or it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, then it is ambiguous and its meaning must be resolved by a finder of fact.

            It’s unlikely that Krist would forfeit half a million dollars in the case that Watkins received a bigger settlement.  Krist would still have a claim against the clients based on quantum meruit.

            The problem with the agreement sent from Krist to Watkins is that it doesn’t state the amount that was settled for by the Krist firm.  Also, in the sentence of the agreement where it states that if Watkins recovered more than what the Krist firm recovered than Krist will forfeit all its fees and expenses is uncertain and doubtful according to the appellate court.

            In another case A.W. Wright & Associates, P.C. v. Glover, Anderson, Chandler & Uzick LLP., 993 S.W.2d 466, 470 (Tex. App. 1999) the holding was that language in referral contracts between attorneys was uncertain and doubtful and therefore ambiguous.  If the agreement between the parties is uncertain or doubtful in any way than the court will find it ambiguous.  The appellate court found the agreement to be uncertain and doubtful and therefore ambiguous and remands the case to the trial court.

Decision:

            The appeals court reverses the trial courts award and remands this case to the trial court so that the trier of f ct may determine the true intent of the paties.