JB Accounting Services, LLC; JB Accounting Tax Service Check Cashing, LLC; JB Accounting Tax Services, LLC; and Jennifer Beverly v. Brittany Winters, Adonijah Dale-Winters, and Ashley Hughes (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-23-900402).

Rel: May 9, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025

_________________________

SC-2024-0441
_________________________

JB Accounting Services, LLC; JB Accounting Tax Service Check
Cashing, LLC; JB Accounting Tax Services, LLC; and Jennifer
Beverly

v.

Brittany Winters, Adonijah Dale-Winters, and Ashley Hughes

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court
(CV-23-900402)
SC-2024-0441

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, and

McCool, JJ., concur.

Mitchell, J., dissents, with opinion, which Shaw, J., joins.

2
SC-2024-0441

MITCHELL, Justice (dissenting).

Brittany Winters, Adonijah Dale-Winters, and Ashley Hughes ("the

tax preparers") contracted with JB Accounting Tax Services, LLC ("JB

Accounting"), to provide tax-preparation services. Those contracts stated

that the tax preparers would not be paid for their work if they quit or

were fired before the end of the contract term. They were all eventually

fired and allegedly not paid for most of their work. They sued for breach

of contract.

After a bench trial, the Mobile Circuit Court entered a judgment

that denied the tax preparers' breach-of-contract claims because, in the

court's view, they were not owed any payments after they were fired. It

based this conclusion on the tax preparers' own testimony, in which they

said that they understood the contracts in this way. Even so, the court

exercised its discretion to award the tax preparers damages based on

quantum meruit.

The circuit court erred in doing so. Our precedent is clear that,

when an express contract governs the parties' relationship, quantum

meruit is not an available remedy. I would accordingly reverse the

3
SC-2024-0441

judgment below. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully

dissent.

Facts and Procedural History

The tax preparers agreed to provide tax-preparation services for JB

Accounting during the 2022-2023 tax season. Each of the tax preparers

signed identical contracts, which read, in relevant part:

"The independent contractor shall not disclose any
information relating to [JB Accounting] TO ANYONE
OUTSIDE THE COMPANY. Upon separation from [JB
Accounting], independent contractors shall surrender all
information and properties belonging to [JB Accounting]. [JB
Accounting] reserves the right to let go of any independent
contractor when and deemed right, NO ONE SHOULD TAKE
ANY CLIENT FOLDERS OUT THE OFFICE FOR NO
REASON! YOU WILL BE LET GO IF CAUGHT! NO
EXECPTION! IF YOU QUIT, GET LET GO, YOU WILL NOT
GET PAID FOR THE PEOPLE YOU PUT IN. This is a job so
you need to treat it like a job. NO LATENESS, NO TARDIES,
AND YOU MUST TAKE CARE OF YOU CLIENT. LEAVE
RACTCHETNESS AT HOME MUST BE PROFESSIONAL
WHEN YOU STEP IN THE DOOR! MUST COME TO WORK
IN UNIFORM AND READY TO WORK.

"The independent contractor should understand that
the employment with [JB Accounting] is a temporary one that
spans around IRS Tax Refund period (January-April) and
payment shall be on a commission-based pay scale and the
amount earned shall be on form 1099. That is the IRS form
1099 for tax filing the pay scale is as follow: 30% of the tax
preparation fee MIGHT GO up if u initiative 25 e filed tax
return AND SHOW GOOD PERFORANCE AND TAKE
GOOD CARE OF YOUR CLIENT!"
4
SC-2024-0441

"IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS AGREEMENT SIGN
AND DATE BELOW!"

(Emphasis, capitalization, and errors in original.)

During the tax season, the tax preparers allegedly completed

hundreds of returns: Winters (276), Dale-Winters (222), and Hughes

(113). But they were apparently paid for only a fraction of them: Winters

(about 50), Dale-Winters (fewer than 20), and Hughes (4). All were

eventually fired.

The tax preparers filed a complaint in March 2023 against JB

Accounting; JB Accounting Tax Service Check Cashing, LLC; JB

Accounting Services, LLC; Jennifer Beverly; Debra Richardson; and

Jadasha Bowman James ("the defendants"). The complaint listed claims

of (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) conversion, and (4) civil conspiracy.

In their motion for summary judgment, the tax preparers argued that

each client they served had paid JB Accounting $3,500 and that, under

the contracts, the tax preparers were owed 30% of those payments.

According to the tax preparers, they were collectively owed hundreds of

thousands of dollars. Yet, they say, they were severely underpaid:

Winters had received only $18,900, Dale-Winters $55,210.50, and

Hughes a mere $4,200.
5
SC-2024-0441

The circuit court conducted a bench trial. At trial, the tax preparers

each testified as to (1) how many returns they had completed, (2) how

much they had been paid and what they were allegedly owed, and

(3) their understanding of the contracts. The tax preparers called no

other witnesses, and the defendants did not present any evidence or

testimony.

At the end of the trial, the circuit court dismissed the tax preparers'

civil-conspiracy and fraud claims, leaving only the breach-of-contract and

conversion claims. It also dismissed defendants Richardson and James,

leaving defendants JB Accounting; JB Accounting Tax Service Check

Cashing, LLC; JB Accounting Services, LLC; and Jennifer Beverly

("Beverly and the businesses").

The circuit court later entered a judgment in favor of the tax

preparers. While the court denied the tax preparers' breach-of-contract

claims, it granted them relief based on quantum meruit. The circuit court

invoked its discretion under Rule 54(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., to grant this relief.

Its judgment reads, in relevant part:

"Upon consideration of the testimony and evidence presented
at trial, the Court finds the following: (1) that [the tax
preparers] cannot recover against [Beverly and the
businesses] on the contract claim because the [tax preparers]
6
SC-2024-0441

each testified that they understood that the contract[s] barred
recovery if they were terminated prior to being paid for their
work, (2) that a quantum meruit claim was tried by implied
consent of the parties, and (3) that the [tax preparers] are
entitled to a judgment against [Beverly and the businesses]
on the quantum meruit claim."

Beverly and the businesses now appeal that judgment to our Court.

Analysis

Our precedent is clear that, when an express contract governs the

parties' relationship, quantum meruit is not an available remedy. Here,

the circuit court found that such contracts existed. And because the tax

preparers did not challenge the validity of those contracts at trial or on

appeal, the contracts' terms control. The circuit court's judgment based

on quantum meruit is thus due to be reversed.

A. Quantum Meruit

Ordinarily, when someone knowingly accepts services from another

person and retains a benefit resulting from those services, the law

" 'implies a promise' " for the beneficiary to pay the " 'reasonable value' "

of the services rendered. Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So. 2d 638, 656 (Ala.

2006) (quoting Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City of Daphne, 359 So.

2d 792, 795 (Ala. 1978)). If the beneficiary fails to honor this implied

7
SC-2024-0441

promise to pay, the service provider may pursue a quantum meruit claim

to recover the "reasonable value" of his services. Id.

But that rule has an exception: " '[w]hen an express contract exists,

an argument based on a quantum meruit recovery in regard to an implied

contract fails.' " Mantiply, 951 So. 2d at 656 (quoting Brannan & Guy,

P.C. v. City of Montgomery, 828 So. 2d 914, 921 (Ala. 2002)); see also

Vardaman v. Florence City Bd. of Educ., 544 So. 2d 962, 965 (Ala. 1989)

(plurality opinion) ("It has long been recognized in Alabama that the

existence of an express contract generally excludes an implied agreement

relative to the same subject matter."). A quantum meruit claim is

therefore unavailable when the parties have an express contract. See

Lemoine Co. of Alabama v. HLH Constructors, Inc., 62 So. 3d 1020, 1028

(Ala. 2010) (rejecting quantum meruit argument based on existence of a

express contract and noting that a quantum meruit recovery would

render one of the contract's provisions "meaningless"); Restatement

(Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Part II, Ch. 4, Topic 2,

Intro. Note § 2 (Am. L. Inst. 2011) (summarizing judicial authorities for

the proposition that "enrichment derived from a valid consensual

exchange is neither unjust nor unjustified"). For that reason, a court

8
SC-2024-0441

should not override that contract by replacing it with a judicially created

implied contract. See Homes of Legend, Inc. v. McCollough, 776 So. 2d

741, 746 (Ala. 2000) ("Under general Alabama rules of contract

interpretation, the intent of the contracting parties is discerned from the

whole of the contract."); cf. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Schroder,

235 Ala. 655, 659, 180 So. 327, 330 (1938) ("We are not permitted, under

the guise of construction, to make new contracts for the parties, nor to

add to the terms of a contract words, terms, or conditions not contained

in it.").

The circuit court's ruling that the parties were bound by

enforceable, express contracts foreclosed it from entering a judgment

based on quantum meruit. Each of the contracts provide: "IF YOU QUIT,

GET LET GO, YOU WILL NOT GET PAID FOR THE PEOPLE YOU

PUT IN." According to its judgment, the circuit court found that the "[tax

preparers] cannot recover against [Beverly and the businesses] on the

contract claim because the [tax preparers] each testified that they

understood that the contract[s] barred recovery if they were terminated

prior to being paid for their work." Accordingly, the circuit court held

that (1) the contracts were valid and (2) the tax preparers, by their own

9
SC-2024-0441

admissions, could not recover under them. And because the circuit court

determined that there were enforceable, express contracts, it could not

enter a judgment based on quantum meruit. See Mantiply, 951 So. 2d at

656; Vardaman, 544 So. 2d at 965.

B. Failure to Present Arguments

Unfortunately for the tax preparers, at no point did they challenge

the contracts' validity. While they initially pleaded fraud in their

complaint, the tax preparers provided no facts at trial to support that

claim, and the circuit court dismissed it. Had the tax preparers

successfully challenged the validity of the contracts, they may have been

able to recover based on quantum meruit. See, e.g., Mantiply, 951 So. 2d

at 656 (holding that, because a purported contract lacked an identifiable

measure of compensation, it was unenforceable and thus did not preclude

a quantum meruit claim). Absent such a challenge during trial, however,

recovery under quantum meruit was not possible.

This legal conclusion does not mean that I personally approve of the

contracts. But what I think the parties should have argued is irrelevant,

because it is well established that our Court "will not 'reverse a [circuit]

court's judgment based on arguments not presented to [it].' " Avis Rent

10
SC-2024-0441

A Car Sys., Inc. v. Heilman, 876 So. 2d 1111, 1124 (Ala. 2003) (citation

omitted). This rule serves several functions, but one is to ensure that

defendants have adequate notice. See Penney v. Carden, 356 So. 2d 1188,

1192 (Ala. 1978). Here, Beverly and the businesses did not have notice

that the tax preparers were challenging the contracts' validity because

no challenge was made. Indeed, the circuit court determined that they

were valid based on the tax preparers' own understanding of the

contracts. And that is why the circuit court could not grant quantum

meruit relief by exercising its discretion: to award relief not pleaded by

the plaintiff, the defendant must have some form of notice and an

opportunity to defend himself. See Rule 54(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Penney,

356 So. 2d at 1192. Here, there was no notice that the contracts were

challenged, let alone notice of quantum meruit claims that presume those

contracts are invalid.

Conclusion

Because the circuit court held that there were enforceable, express

contracts between the parties, it was required to enforce those contracts

and could not issue an award based on quantum meruit. For that reason,

I would reverse the judgment below. I respectfully dissent.

11
SC-2024-0441

Shaw, J., concurs.

12