{
  "id": 8551175,
  "name": "PARKS N. AUSTIN, BOYD P. FALLS AND WALTER W. HAMEL, a partnership, trading as AUSTIN, FALLS & HAMEL, CPA'S v. R. W. RAINES ENTERPRISES, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Austin v. R. W. Raines Enterprises, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1980-03-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7926DC823",
  "first_page": "709",
  "last_page": "711",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 709"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 671",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627747
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0671-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 S.E. 2d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569674
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560580
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "417"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.951884050893418e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4627356652839606
    },
    "sha256": "59a11eba473828e4792ab5571e39ac3fef17f9d1566b679ba985a94744945fe4",
    "simhash": "1:dec78e1409eebfc7",
    "word_count": 752
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PARKS N. AUSTIN, BOYD P. FALLS AND WALTER W. HAMEL, a partnership, trading as AUSTIN, FALLS & HAMEL, CPA\u2019S v. R. W. RAINES ENTERPRISES, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff.\nIt is not disputed that the plaintiff rendered services to the defendant, the reasonable value of which the defendant is obligated to pay. The sole issue presented concerns the worth of the services, and the burden of proof on that issue rests on the plaintiff. The rule of law is settled in this State that the trial judge cannot direct a verdict for the party with the burden of proof when that party\u2019s \u201cright to recover depends upon the credibility of his witnesses.\u201d Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 417, 180 S.E. 2d 297, 311 (1971). This is true even though the evidence be uncontradicted. Chisholm v. Hall, 255 N.C. 374, 121 S.E. 2d 726 (1961); Rhinehardt v. Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 671, 119 S.E. 2d 614 (1961).\nThe only evidence of the value of plaintiff\u2019s services in this case was the testimony of one partner in the firm that he \u201cfelt\u201d $16.00 an hour to be a \u201creasonable\u201d fee. No independent or objective evidence of the reasonable value of such services was offered. Plaintiff\u2019s proof clearly depends completely upon the credibility of its witness. Although the defendant offered no evidence respecting the reasonable value of the services rendered it, it did deny that their worth as determined by the plaintiff was reasonable. Such is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the reasonable value of the services, and that question is for the jury. See Chisholm v. Hall, supra.\nIt follows that the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Webb and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Curtis & Millsaps, by Joe T. Millsaps, for the plaintiff ap-pellee.",
      "Lindsey, Schrimpsher, Erwin, Bernhardt & Hewitt, by Lawrence W. Hewitt and John W. Beddow, for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PARKS N. AUSTIN, BOYD P. FALLS AND WALTER W. HAMEL, a partnership, trading as AUSTIN, FALLS & HAMEL, CPA\u2019S v. R. W. RAINES ENTERPRISES, INC.\nNo. 7926DC823\n(Filed 18 March 1980)\nAccountants \u00a7 1\u2014 fee for preparing tax return \u2014 insufficient evidence of value of services\nIn an action to recover for professional services provided by plaintiff in preparing defendant\u2019s corporate income tax returns, plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving the reasonable value of its services and the trial court therefore erred in directing verdict for plaintiff where the only evidence of the value of plaintiff\u2019s services was the testimony of one partner in the firm that he \u201cfelt\u201d $16 an hour to be a \u201creasonable\u201d fee, and no independent or objective evidence of the reasonable worth of such services was offered.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Brown, Judge. Judgment entered 24 April 1979 in District Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard., in the Court of Appeals on 6 March 1980.\nIn this civil action plaintiffs, certified public accountants, seek to recover $2,250.00 for professional services allegedly provided in preparing defendant\u2019s corporate income tax returns. Defendant filed answer wherein it admitted that it had employed plaintiff to prepare its tax returns, but denied that it was indebted in the amount claimed for the reason that it \u201cdid not authorize the extensive amount of work that Plaintiff contends that it has performed. . . .\u201d\nAt trial plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that a member of the firm had spent approximately 139 hours between January and June of 1976 sorting through various docum\u00e9nts and business records of defendant; reconciling the books previously kept by the defendant\u2019s bookkeeper; and preparing the return. Defendant was billed in January of 1977 at the rate of $16.00 per hour which plaintiff felt \u201cwas a fair and reasonable charge for that particular service,\u201d although plaintiff had not discussed the fee with anyone from defendant\u2019s company prior to sending the bill. The bill remains unpaid.\nDefendant offered the testimony of its secretary, Marilyn Raines, and its president, R. W. Raines, who testified that they had employed the plaintiff in 1976 to do the tax return for the corporation; that they had never agreed on a fee for the service, but plaintiff had assured them when they asked about a fee that \u201cit wouldn\u2019t be too bad\u201d; and that they had not paid the bill for $2,250.00 because they did not believe they owed \u201cthat much.\u201d\nAt the close of the evidence, plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict was allowed, and the court entered a judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $2,250.00. Defendant appealed.\nCurtis & Millsaps, by Joe T. Millsaps, for the plaintiff ap-pellee.\nLindsey, Schrimpsher, Erwin, Bernhardt & Hewitt, by Lawrence W. Hewitt and John W. Beddow, for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0709-01",
  "first_page_order": 737,
  "last_page_order": 739
}