law-quantum meruit | unjust enrichment | breach of contract | quasi-contractual theories of recovery |
incompatibility of quantum meruit claim with recovery for breach of contract, mutual exclusive theories |
Quantum Meruit Claim
WHAT IS A QUANTUM MERUIT CLAIM?
Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy which does not arise out of a contract but is independent of it. Vortt
Exploration Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex.1990). Generally, a party may recover under
quantum meruit only when no express contract covering the services or materials furnished exists. Truly v.
Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 199 1988). This remedy "is based upon the promise implied by law to pay
for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted." Campbell v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 496,
498 (Tex.1978). Recovery in quantum meruit is available when nonpayment for the services rendered would
"result in an unjust enrichment to the party benefitted by the work." City of Ingleside v. Stewart, 554 S.W.2d
939, 943 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). To recover under quantum meruit a claimant must
prove that: (1) valuable services were rendered or materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged;
(3) which services and materials were accepted by the person sought to be charged, used and enjoyed by him;
(4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff in
performing such services was expecting to be paid by the person sought to be charged. Vortt Exploration Co.,
787 S.W.2d at 944.
RECOVERY IN QUANTUM MERUIT: THE LEGAL THEORY DEFINED
Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy based on the promise implied by law to pay for
beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990). Founded on unjust enrichment, quantum meruit “will be had when non
payment for the services rendered would 'result in an unjust enrichment to the party benefited by the work.'” Id.
(quoting City of Ingleside v. Stewart, 554 S.W.2d 939, 943 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
To recover under quantum meruit, a claimant must prove four elements: (1) either valuable services or
materials or both were furnished, (2) to the party sought to be charged, (3) which were accepted by the party
sought to be charged, (4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff, in
performing, expected to be paid by the recipient. Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39,
41 (Tex. 1992). The proper measure of damages for a claim in quantum meruit is the reasonable value of work
performed and the materials furnished. M.J. Sheridan & Son Co. v. Seminole Pipeline Co., 731 S.W.2d 620, 625
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ).
QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY OF RECOVERY - HOUSTON CASE LAW
Quantum Meruit: Requisites to Prove Claim
In issue three, Langhorne argues the trial court “erred in its decision that [Langhorne] take nothing against
[Miller] on his claim of quantum meruit asserted against [Miller]."
To prove quantum meruit against Miller, Langhorne had to show (1) he rendered
valuable services or furnished materials; (2) for Miller; (3) which services and materials
Miller accepted, used, and enjoyed; (4) under such circumstances as reasonably
notified Miller that Langhorne, in performing such services, was expecting Miller to pay
him.
See Wohlfahrt v. Holloway, 172 S.W.3d 630, 634 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).
Langhorne's claim fails for several reasons. First, Langhorne's oral agreement was with Peters, not Miller.[10]
Second, the existence of Langhorne's express contract with Peters for the same services for which he now
seeks reimbursement from Miller defeats his claim against Miller for quantum meruit. See Econ. Forms Corp. v.
Williams Bros. Constr. Co., 754 S.W.2d 451, 458 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ).[11] Third, the
trial court found that, no later than July 31, 2001, a date shortly after the probate court awarded Miller the
aircraft, Langhorne denied having them. Finally, the trial court found Miller did not know Langhorne had
possession of her planes or expected compensation for their storage until on or after June 13, 2005, i.e., when
Langhorne's attorney sent the demand letter.
Langhorne v. Miller (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2009)(Seymore) (conversion of aircraft,
proof of conversion damages, market value, owner may testify, quantum meruit claim fails)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Justices Seymore, Brown and Sullivan)
14-08-00081-CV Danny Langhorne v. Kay M. Miller
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Linda Storey
The evidence was legally insufficient to establish Langhorne's quantum meruit claim against Miller. The trial
court correctly rendered a take-nothing judgment against him. Accordingly, we overrule Langhorne's third
issue.
RECOVERY IN QUANTUM MERUIT IN THE ALTERNATIVE
A party may equitably recover in quantum meruit for goods or services provided absent
a written contract. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990); Tricon
Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Thumann, 226 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).
Generally, a party may recover under quantum meruit only when there is no express contract
covering the services or materials furnished. Vortt, 787 S.W.2d at 944; Tricon, 226 S.W.3d at 502;
see Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex. 2000) ("Generally speaking, when a valid,
express contract covers the subject matter of the parties' dispute, there can be no recovery under a quasi-
contract theory . . . ."). Here, the jury found that Grant breached the written employment agreement made
the basis of his claim. We have concluded that his breach was material. Because an enforceable written
contract existed between the parties that covered Grant's compensation, the trial court did not err in entering a
take-nothing judgment on Grant's quantum meruit claim. Grant v. Laughlin Environmental, Inc. (Tex.App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008)(Jennings)
(summary judgment evidence, conclusory affidavit, breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation)
Andy's Sunmart #352, Inc. v. Reliant Energy Retail Services (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 5, 2009)
(Jennings) (sworn account judgment reversed, reasonableness of charges not established) (quantum meruit
claim also fails)
REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Jennings
Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp
01-08-00890-CV Andy's Sunmart #352, Inc., Holcombe Sunmart Inc., aka Sunmart #139 and Adnan A. Najm,
Individually v. Reliant Energy Retail Services
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd
In regard to Reliant’s quantum meruit claim, Reliant, in its briefing, repeats its suggestion that the evidence
before the trial court allowed the court to make certain “reasonable inferences” as a basis for granting the
summary judgment. If the trial court had entered its final judgment following a brief bench trial, Reliant’s
arguments would be more relevant. However, to obtain a summary judgment on its quantum meruit claim,
Reliant was required to conclusively prove, as a matter of law, that (1) valuable services were rendered or
materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) which services and materials were accepted
by the person sought to be charged, used and enjoyed by him; (4) under such circumstances as reasonably
notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff in performing such services was expecting to be paid
by the person sought to be charged. Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Houston, 235 S.W.3d 811,
815 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). The measure of damages for a quantum meruit claim is the
reasonable value of the work performed. Johnston v. Kruse, 261 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no
pet.) (setting forth affidavit testimony regarding “reasonable pay” for services).
Reasonable value may be established through lay testimony. See id. However, as noted above, Mena, in her
affidavit, did not testify that the invoices and account records presented by Reliant contain reasonable and
customary charges for Reliant’s electrical services. Rather, Mena simply stated that the invoices accurately
reflected Reliant’s charges and that all lawful credits were made. Mena did not provide testimony establishing,
as a matter of law, that Reliant may recover through its quantum meruit claim the amounts set forth in the
outstanding invoices. Footnote
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Reliant on either its
sworn account or quantum meruit claims.
Borrell v. Vital Weight Control, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 26, 2009)(Frost)
(no quantum meruit claim where express contract covers claim)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Frost
Before Justices Frost, Seymore and Guzman
14-07-00390-CV Leo Borrell v. Vital Weight Control, Inc., d/b/a Neweigh
Appeal from 129th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Samuel Grant Dorfman
Unifund CCR Partners v. Gellatly (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2008)(Nuchia)
(credit card suit by assignee of card issuer against consumer, deemed admissions, sufficiency of summary
judgment proof, breach of contract and quantum meruit claim exclusive of each other, incompatible)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks
01-07-00552-CV Unifund CCR Partners v. Sara Morgan Gellatly
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd
Because the deemed admissions conclusively prove the existence of a contract, quantum meruit is not available
as a theory of recovery. Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex. 2000) (holding that
because party to contract bound by express agreement, quantum meruit not available where express contract
proven).
L&L Crane Service, Inc. v. Continental Dredging, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008) (Nuchia)
(commercial dispute, storage fees, breach of contract, quantum meruit, conversion claim)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Justices Nuchia, Hanks and Higley
01-07-00083-CV L&L Crane Service, Inc. v. Continental Dredging, Inc.
Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Mark Davidson
Simulis LLC v. GE Capital Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 17, 2008)(Yates)
(promissory note, estoppel, quantum meruit)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates
Before Justices Brock Yates, Fowler and Guzman
14-06-00701-CV Simulis, L.L.C. v. General Electric Capital Corporation
Appeal from 270th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Brent Gamble
AKIB Construction, Inc. v. Neff Rental, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008)(Hedges)
(sworn account, breach of contract, breach of lease claim not a sworn account, quantum meruit)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
14-07-00063-CV AKIB Construction, Inc. v. Neff Rental, Inc.
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Ed Landry
Lastly, we look at Neff's quantum meruit cause of action. Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy which does not arise out of a
contract but is independent of it. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990). In fact, a party may
generally recover on quantum meruit only when no express contract covers the services or goods at issue. Id. The quantum
meruit remedy is based upon the promise implied by law to pay reasonable value for beneficial services knowingly accepted.
See id. To recover under quantum meruit, a claimant must prove that: (1) valuable services were rendered or goods provided; (2)
for the person sought to be charged; (3) which services or goods were accepted by the person sought to be charged, used and
enjoyed by him; (4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff in
performing such services or providing such goods was expecting to be paid by the person sought to be charged. See id.
Additionally, the claimant must establish the reasonable value for the services that were rendered or materials provided. Hudson
v. Cooper, 162 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). If the claimant does not establish reasonable value
as a matter of law, the issue is one for a finder of fact to determine. See id.
In its Second Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Neff devotes scant attention to its quantum meruit cause of action.
At no point in the motion does Neff cite to any evidence that AKIB accepted any services or materials or used and enjoyed them.
Instead, Neff's allegations focus on AKIB's supposed agreement to pay for the leased equipment.
Additionally, Neff's motion cites to no evidence of the value of the services rendered. Although various invoices are attached to the
motion, there is no claim (in the motion or in any attached affidavit) that the charges reflected on the invoices constituted
reasonable value for services rendered. Consequently, Neff has failed to conclusively establish its right to recovery under its
quantum meruit cause of action. See id. The trial court therefore erred if it based its judgment on this theory of recovery. Because
we find that the trial court's grant of summary judgment is not supported by any of the grounds raised in Neff's motion, we sustain
AKIB's sole issue.
We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE