Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. v. The Guarantee Group, L.L.C.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed directed verdicts entered in a dispute over an alleged oral agreement to pay Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. $205,000 for accounting services related to a residential development. The court held that a reasonable jury could find contract formation and that the agreement was not within the one-year provision of Nebraska’s statute of frauds because its terms did not make performance within one year impossible. The court affirmed the directed verdict on Lavalleur’s individual claim, reversed the directed verdict on the professional corporation’s claim, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that Guarantee Group offered to pay $205,000 for Lavalleur's accountancy services by withholding $1,000 from each of 205 home closings and that Sean O'Connor accepted that arrangement. The district court therefore could not direct a verdict on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds.
2. A reasonable jury could find sufficient consideration where Lavalleur performed the accountancy services at Sean O'Connor's request and Guarantee Group later promised to pay for those services. Nebraska recognizes the common-law exception under which a present promise to pay for past services rendered at the promisor's request is enforceable.
3. The alleged oral agreement was not within Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-202(1) because its terms did not require performance to extend beyond one year. The one-year provision applies only when the agreement, by its terms, is incapable of being performed within one year; expected, probable, or actual performance lasting longer does not bring an agreement within the statute.
4. The alleged agreement was not shown to be void as against public policy or to constitute a contingent-fee agreement governed by 288 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 5, § 005.03B. The rule concerns fees contingent on attaining a specified finding or result, whereas the alleged later promise required payment of a fixed $205,000 without such a contingency.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in directing a verdict against Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. on the ground that the alleged oral compensation agreement fell within the one-year provision of Nebraska's statute of frauds.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed under the directed-verdict standard, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find offer, acceptance, consideration, and an enforceable oral contract.
3. Whether the alleged agreement was void as against public policy because it was allegedly a contingent-fee agreement subject to Nebraska's accountancy administrative rule.
4. Whether the directed verdict entered on Bruce Lavalleur's individual claim should be affirmed where no error was assigned or argued.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded