Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KAREN B. NEISWINGER Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: NATHANIEL LEE ROBERT E. FEAGLEY II Lee, Cossell, Kuehn & Love, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ROBERT J. DELANEY Williams, Delaney & Simkin Richmond, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SANDY L. BRYANT Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KAREN B. NEISWINGER Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELA DEVONNE JOHNSON, DECEASED, MAKEEDA LEBLANC, ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELA DEVONNE JOHNSON, DECEASED, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 89A01-0505-CV-204

JOHN W. FARMER, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. REBECCA S. LAWSON, Appellee-Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Barbara Harcourt, Special Judge Cause No. 89D02-9601-ES-2 The Honorable David A. Kolger, Judge Cause No. 89C01-9703-CT-9

October 24, 2006 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE In this consolidated appeal, Karen Neiswinger (Neiswinger), on behalf of the Estate of Angela DeVonne Johnson (the Estate), appeals the trial court's Order directing the Estate to pay $184,484.80 in attorney fees and $28,794.61 in expenses to Clyde Williams (Williams) of Williams, Delaney & Simkin for legal services provided in Cause Number IP 96-1047-C G/T, MaKeeda LeBlanc, Administratrix of the Estate of Angela DeVonne Johnson, Deceased v. Great Western Express, a Division of Lisa Motorlines, Inc. and Joe Mathis; while Robert J. Delaney (Delaney) of Williams, Delaney & Simkin, on behalf of John Farmer (Farmer), appeals the trial court's Order validating an attorney lien entitling Neiswinger to $5,557.09 in attorney fees and expenses for legal services provided in Cause Number 89C01-9703-CT-009, John Farmer v. Rebecca Lawson. We affirm. ISSUES

2

Neiswinger, on the Estate's behalf, raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as the following issue: Whether the trial court erred in ordering the Estate to pay Williams $184,484.80 in attorney fees and $28,794.61 in expenses when Williams withdrew from representing the Estate after a judgment was issued, but prior to an appeal. 1 Delaney, on Farmer's behalf, raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred in its determination that Neiswinger holds a valid attorney lien in the amount of $5,557.09 for her legal services and expenses in the case of John Farmer v. Rebecca Lawson when Neiswinger withdrew from representing Farmer prior to any judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Facts Related to the Estate of Angela DeVonne Johnson On June 25, 2004, the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (federal court), entered an Order responding to five separate motions to dismiss filed by Neiswinger on behalf of the Estate. We restate this Order, in pertinent part, below because of its excellent recitation of the facts and its relation to the issues before us: STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS *** 1. On January 7, 1996, a multi-vehicle collision occurred during a [snowstorm] in Wayne County, Indiana. As a result of the collision,

1

In addition, Neiswinger argues the trial court failed to enforce sanctions imposed against Williams. While the record includes a Motion for Sanctions filed by the Estate on November 17, 2003, we fail to find any reference to the outcome of this motion in the record. Therefore, with no copy of the appealed sanctions to review, we waive this issue. See Ind. Appellate R. 49(A)(2)(b).

3

Angela DeVonne Johnson [(Johnson)] died and her former husband, Keith Johnson, was seriously injured. 2. At some later time in January, 1996, Keith Johnson entered into a written contingent fee contract with the firm of Williams, Delaney & Simkin [(WDS)], wherein he engaged the firm to prosecute his personal injury claim. . . . *** 6. On February 15, 1996, a separate written contingent fee agreement was entered into between MaKeeda LeBlanc [(LeBlanc)], one of the heirs of [Johnson], and [] Neiswinger, and Clyde Williams [(Williams)], [of WDS] (Attorneys). This contract provided that the attorneys would prosecute a wrongful death action on behalf of the heirs of [] Johnson. . . . 7. This contract provided for a contingent fee at the "rate of 40% of the gross proceeds recovered [following the setting of a trial date] by compromise or [judgment."] Like the Keith Johnson contract, this contract provided for the payment of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the attorneys whether "a recovery is obtained or not." 8. Unlike the Keith Johnson contract, this contract is silent on the matter of an appeal, neither obligating the attorneys to prosecute or defend an appeal nor providing for fees if they were engaged to do so. 9. This contract provided that should the client request the attorneys "to withdraw before a recovery is received, in the event of a later recovery" the attorneys were to be compensated for the reasonable value of their services to the time of withdrawal. This was to be computed on an hourly basis at the rate of $250.00 per hour. 10. At some point between the execution of the contract between Keith Johnson and [WDS] and the contract between [] LeBlanc and [] Neiswinger and [] Williams, [of WDS], [] Williams and [] Neiswinger entered into an oral contract to jointly represent Keith Johnson and the [] Estate and prosecute their claims. That oral contract provided for an equal division of any fees recovered and an equal division of expenses. 11. On July 25, 1996, a complaint for wrongful death was filed [in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana]. Both [] Neiswinger and [] Williams appeared for the [] Estate. On the same
4

date, a complaint for personal injuries was filed for Keith Johnson by the same counsel. 12. Trial in the consolidated cases of the Estate and Keith Johnson commenced on April 30, 2001 and concluded with [a] jury verdict for each of the Plaintiffs on May 14, 2001. 13. Judgments were entered on the jury's verdicts on May 15, 2001. Judgment was entered for the Estate in the amount of $922,454.40. Keith Johnson recovered a judgment of $54,000.00. 14. On June 14, 2001, a notice of appeal was filed in the consolidated case. 15. On June 15, 2001, [] LeBlanc sent a letter to [] Williams requesting that he cease his representation of the [] Estate. 16. On November 19, 2001, Keith Johnson sent a letter to [Williams] terminating his representation in [his personal injury action]. 17. On June 14, 2002, [WDS] by [] Williams filed its Attorney Fee Lien Notice in [federal court] against the Judgments in favor of the Estate and Keith Johnson. 18. On July 1, 2002, [Williams] withdrew as counsel for the Estate and Keith Johnson. This motion was granted July 3, 2002. 19. On February 14, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of [the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana] in the Estate and [Keith] Johnson case. 20. On March 19, 2003, [] Williams filed a Notification of Attorneys Lien in the amount of $184,484.80 against the Judgment in favor of the Estate and in the amount of $28,794.61 against the Judgment in favor of Keith Johnson. *** 21. On September 30, 2003, the law firm of [WDS] moved to intervene to prosecute its claims for the liens against the Judgments. Leave to intervene was granted October 8, 2003. (The Estate's App. pp. 605-09).
5

The federal court then denied all five motions to dismiss, explaining, in pertinent part: In responding to the liens filed by [WDS], the Estate and [Keith] Johnson have filed five motions to dismiss. The first two filed by each of the Estate and [Keith] Johnson seek a dismissal of the liens for failure to state a claim. The remaining three motions, filed only by the [E]state, are based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, issue preclusion[,] and abstention. *** On April 17, 2003, the Estate filed its Motion to Dismiss Claim of [] Williams . . . for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This motion claims that [WDS] has filed claims in the Wayne [s]uperior [c]ourt 2, the [c]ourt which is administering the probate estate of [] Johnson. The motion appears to be claiming either that the [p]robate [c]ourt has exclusive jurisdiction, or that this [c]ourt ought to defer to that [c]ourt. . . . Plaintiff cites no statute or case authority that limits the jurisdiction of this [c]ourt to adjudicate this controversy. The original jurisdiction of the [c]ourt was based on diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount. 28 U.S.C.

Download In the Matter of the Estate of Angela Devonne Johnson, John W. Farmer v. Rebecca

Indiana Law