With respect to clients claiming that one of their employees was not authorized to order the work...once the client has accepted the work the client has ratified the conduct of the employee. That is the equivalent of authorizing the employee to order the work.

If you find that the mortgage for which you performed the search was recorded on the strength of your abstract, your client has accepted your services, and the above argument comes into play. In which case the lender may also be liable to you for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit/quasi-contract if it knew or should have known that you expected to be compensated for your services. Having your name listed on the HUD 1 form goes a long way to putting the lender on notice of this. If this argument is successful against the lender, the plaintiff can garnish the borrower's monthly mortgage payments to the lender to satisfy the judgment.

A defendant in a case on which I was working recently raised the authority of the employee signatory to a contract as a defense. The court ruled against him. The judge's memorandum of decision indicated that when the defendant accepted the benefits of the contract he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the contract. The longer the client waits to assert this argument after demand for payment is made, the weaker his defense becomes. Once the defendant accepted the work...his argument was dead.

All the defense did was buy him time until trial. That is when the plaintiff usually attaches or garnishes the defendant's property up front through a prejudgment remedy to assure that there are assets to pay the subsequent judgment.

There is also the possibility that the defendant may have clothed his employee with enough inherent authority or apparent authority to create the reasonable impression that the employee was expressly authorized to order the work. However, these arguments are a little harder for the plaintiff to prove.

Your abstract remains your property until your bill is paid. If payment becomes an issue... you can demand that your client either pay you or return your property to you. I recently had some fun with this scenario, and was paid rather quickly. 

As long as the client has not filed for bankruptcy...there is a lot you can do to have your bills paid. Do not acquiesce in a delinquent client's delaying tactics. If you do, your bill will become harder to collect because the client's funds will have become dissipated.

to post a reply: login - or - register