Brannan & Guy, P.C., and Gunter Guy, Jr. v. City of Montgomery

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for the City of Montgomery in an attorney-fee dispute involving Brannan & Guy, P.C., and Gunter Guy, Jr. The court held that the city attorney lacked actual or apparent authority to approve an increased hourly rate, that the defendants were not entitled to recover the higher rate under unilateral-contract or quantum-meruit theories, and that the City's payments did not ratify the increased rate.

Holdings

1. The defendants did not establish on appeal that the city attorney had actual authority to approve the $175 hourly rate, and the record supported the trial court's finding that only the mayor had authority to set the rates.
2. The defendants were not entitled to recover more than the authorized $90 and $120 hourly rates under quantum meruit, and the summary judgment for the City was proper.
3. The defendants did not establish a unilateral contract entitling them to payment at the $175 hourly rate.
4. The city attorney lacked apparent authority to approve the defendants' increased hourly rate, and the defendants could not justifiably rely on such authority.
5. The City did not ratify the purported agreement because the evidence did not show that the City knew of the unauthorized rate when the six bills were paid.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants preserved and established that the city attorney had actual authority to approve a $175 hourly rate.
2. Whether the defendants were entitled to recover the $175 hourly rate under quantum meruit or unjust-enrichment principles.
3. Whether a unilateral contract arose from the defendants' performance of legal services after communicating the intended $175 hourly rate.
4. Whether the city attorney had apparent authority to bind the City to the increased rate.
5. Whether the City's payment of six bills ratified the purported agreement.

Disposition

affirmed