## Facts

- Roy Campbell retained attorney John Oliver to represent him in a separate maintenance action in which Campbell cross-complained for divorce.
- On December 16, 1949, Oliver and Campbell executed a written fee agreement for a “total fee” of $750 plus $100 for costs and incidentals, payable “after trial.”
- Oliver tried the matter over 29 trial days, ending in May 1950; the court indicated it would award Mrs. Campbell a divorce.
- While proposed findings were under consideration, Campbell discharged Oliver by substituting himself as attorney, terminating Oliver’s representation.
- Findings in the marital action were later filed in May 1951.
- Oliver sued using a common count for the reasonable value of his services (alleging $10,000), not on the express contract.
- The trial court found the services were rendered pursuant to the contract, valued the reasonable value at $5,000, and found Campbell had paid $450 toward fees plus the $100 costs.
- After Campbell’s death, Oliver filed a creditor’s claim against the estate; the administratrix rejected it.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who has essentially completed performance under an express fixed-fee contract may disregard the contract and recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services when the client’s remaining obligation is a definite sum of money.
2. Whether Oliver’s performance was sufficiently complete to treat the matter as one of completed (or substantially completed) performance under a fixed-fee contract.
3. Whether a plaintiff who pleaded a common count for services may nonetheless recover the unpaid balance due under an express contract proved at trial.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the estate and remanded with directions to enter judgment for Oliver for the unpaid balance of the contract fee.
- The court held Oliver had essentially completed the contracted performance; the only remaining exchange due from Campbell was payment of a liquidated, fixed sum.
- Because the contract governed and performance was substantially complete, quantum meruit restitution was unavailable to increase recovery above the contract price.
- The court held the common count pleading did not bar recovery of a sum certain due under the express contract.
- Oliver’s recovery was limited to $300 (the unpaid portion of the $750 fee after crediting the $450 paid); the $100 costs had already been paid.

## Legal Principles

- Restitution (quantum meruit) is not available to a party who has fully performed a contract when the only unrendered counterperformance is payment of a liquidated monetary debt; the remedy is the contract price and no more.
- When an express fee contract covers the services and the attorney’s performance is essentially complete, recovery is limited to the unpaid contract balance, even if the reasonable value of services is higher.
- A common count may support recovery of a sum certain due under an express contract proved at trial; pleading in common counts does not necessarily preclude contract recovery where the facts establish a fixed debt.

## Conclusion

The court limited an attorney’s recovery to the unpaid balance of a fixed-fee agreement where the attorney had essentially completed performance and the client’s only remaining obligation was payment of a definite sum, while also allowing contract-based recovery under a common count.


Oliver v. Campbell, 43 Cal. 2d 298, 273 P.2d 15 (Cal. 1954)