Attorney fee dispute; Breach of contract & unjust enrichment claims; Statute of limitations; Distinguishing Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, Deitch & Serlin, PC v Bakshi; Accrual; Jackson v Estate of Green; Applicability of the parol-evidence rule; Waiver of affirmative defenses; Cole v Ladbroke Racing MI, Inc; Request for remand to a different judge; Bayati v Bayati

In this attorney fee dispute, the court concluded defendant did not waive her statute of limitations defense, but the trial court erred in granting her summary disposition based on the statute of limitations. It also erred in ruling that the parol-evidence rule barred plaintiffs-attorney and law firm’s breach of contract claim. But plaintiffs were not entitled to summary disposition or remand to a different judge. The court reversed summary disposition for defendant and remanded. After her son was killed by a California sheriff’s deputy, defendant allegedly contacted the attorney “to help her persuade California officials to pursue criminal charges against the deputy. In accordance with the parties’ purported oral agreement, plaintiffs claimed they devoted about 73.5 hours of work to defendant’s case at a rate of $350 per hour, totaling about $31,222.46 in costs and attorney fees.” She did not pay, and they filed this action nearly six years later. The court first determined that “defendant’s amendment was properly accepted by the trial court, meaning the statute-of-limitations defense was not waived, and the trial court did not err by considering defendant’s” summary disposition motion. However, as to summary disposition, “plaintiffs’ billing statement and letter to defendant did not specify a specific payment due date. With no set date of performance, [their] claims would have accrued only after a reasonable time had passed. Because such a determination is necessarily a factual question for a jury,” the court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion. While she relied on Seyburn, the court found the holding in that case distinguishable. “The oral agreement under which plaintiffs seek to recover was not an attorney-client relationship that required judicial approval before it could be terminated; the oral agreement solely governed plaintiffs’ efforts to secure a criminal prosecution of the deputy who shot defendant’s son.” Given that “there was no attorney-client relationship under the oral agreement that necessitated discharge by the trial court, the general rules governing the accrual of a breach-of-contract claim apply, and the trial court erred” in granting defendant summary disposition. But plaintiffs were also not entitled to summary disposition because there was a question of fact as to “the existence, and, by extension, the enforceability, of the alleged oral agreement.”