No Meeting of Minds No Contract
Post 4798
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZzyvX4W, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGDuY2-j and at https://lnkd.in/gjhYupNS and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Attorney Richard Schicker sued a former client, Brandi Cady, seeking payment for attorney fees under a contingency fee agreement. The district court dismissed Schicker’s complaint, finding that there had been no meeting of the minds during the formation of the agreement and thus there was no valid, enforceable contract.
In Richard Schicker v. Brandi Cady, No. A-23-455, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 7, 2024) the Nebraska Court of Appeals explained what is needed to form a viable and enforceable contract.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Attorney Schicker sued Cady alleging that he had entered into a written contract with Cady whereby Schicker was to represent Cady in a claim against Lincoln Financial Group (LFG) for life insurance benefits owing to Cady due to the death of Cady’s husband. LFG later agreed to pay Cady the full policy amount and the complaint sought judgment against Cady for 40 percent of that amount, plus any costs incurred by Schicker.
Cady testified that at the time of her husband’s death, the couple had three young children, and that she immediately attempted to collect his life insurance benefits.
Cady called Schicker’s law office and testified that she called to inquire about a personal injury claim, as she had heard from community members that the highway where her husband was killed had been deemed dangerous and was soon to be under construction.
A contingency fee agreement between Cady and Schicker was executed. The agreement was entered into evidence and state that Schicker was to be paid 40 percent of the amount recovered or settled on behalf of Cady. In the first paragraph of the fee agreement is the statement, “[c]lient may have a claim against ___” and the section is filled in with “Lincoln Financial[.]” She did not recall “Lincoln Financial” appearing anywhere in the fee agreement at the time she signed it.
On October 2, 2017, at 10:36 a.m., Cady sent Schicker an email with the subject line “Cancellation of Services.” The email states: “At this time, I have a family member who is going to handle insurance claims for Lincoln Financial. … I do still want to retain you for possible case regarding the accident itself.”
On October 2, 2017 the parties canceled their fee agreement. Another copy of the fee agreement was entered into evidence, which includes the additional notation “Agreement cancelled as of 10-2-2017” at the bottom of the form and Schicker’s signature below the notation.
Cady testified that she had done all of the work to collect the insurance claim herself. Klenda (a representative of LFG) testified that the only phone call she had with Schicker occurred after the claim was paid and he was attempting to collect attorney fees from LFG. The district court dismissed Schicker’s complaint. The blank space in the fee agreement as established that the actual fee agreement was not completed.
In addition the district court found that Schicker lacked credibility. Schicker’s itemized bill stated that he spent 58.6 hours of billable time over the course of 12 days working toward the collection of the insurance benefit.
The district court concluded that no agreement had been formed between Schicker and Cady because there was no meeting of the minds as elicited by the testimony at trial.
ANALYSIS - Meeting of the Minds.
A party seeking to enforce a contract has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid, legally enforceable contract. To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract. It is a fundamental rule that in order to be binding, an agreement must be definite and certain as to the terms and requirements. It must identify the subject matter and spell out the essential commitments and agreements with respect thereto.
Because a meeting of the minds had not occurred, there existed no valid, enforceable contract between the parties. The district court did not err in so finding.
Since there was never a meeting of the parties’ minds concerning the claim at issue in the contingency fee agreement there was no valid and enforceable contract.
ZALMA OPINION
Signing a contract where the subject of the contract is left blank is an error a law student would never make nor should any licensed attorney like attorney Schicker. He had the unmitigated gall to sue a client for fees he claimed he earned to gain the benefits of a life insurance policy claiming to spend more than 4 hours a day for 12 straight days on the subject although he never contacted the insurer before they had already paid. He never obtained a valid contingency fee agreement because the key element was left blank when the client signed it. Amateurish actions by a lawyer should never be enforced.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
