ILNews

Attorney's fees can come from damages award

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reasonable attorney's fees may be paid out of the damages award in a wrongful death action, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Ronald Hillebrand v. The Supervised Estate of Charlotte Fern Large, No. 70A01-0902-CV-72, Ronald Hillebrand, as sole surviving child of Charlotte Fern Large, appealed the trial court's order that directed attorney's fees be deducted from Large's wrongful death settlement.

Large was killed following a car accident and the counsel for the person appointed as personal representative of Large's estate pursued a wrongful-death action. The parties settled, and about $12,000 was to be deposited into the estate and $48,000 to be paid to Hillebrand as her beneficiary.

Counsel for the personal representative then requested the trial court allow payment of the attorney's fees to come from the entire settlement recovery. Hillebrand objected, but the trial court ordered the $6,500 in fees for pursuing the wrongful death action be deducted from the settlement.

Examining Indiana Code sections 34-23-1-1 and 34-23-1-2, and relying on caselaw in Vollmar by Vollmar v. Rupright, 517 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), and Thomas v. Eads, 400 N.E.2d 778 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980), the appellate court upheld the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals agreed with the reasoning followed in Thomas in which the trial court noted in a footnote that even though I.C. Section 34-23-1-1 doesn't expressly include attorney fees as recoverable damages in case the decedent leaves dependents or next of kin, attorney's fees are nevertheless included in the list of damages.

Both sections of the wrongful death statute list damages but say damages are not limited to what's listed. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute to allow in every situation - regardless of whether a widow, widower, dependent, or next-of-kin exists - the recovery of reasonable costs of administering the decedent's estate, including attorney's fees, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The legislature intended for any damages recovered for the costs of administering the decedent's estate or prosecuting or compromising an action to inure the exclusive benefit of the estate for the payment of such costs, she continued.

"Thus, as attorney fees are to be treated similar to the 'reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses,' the costs are to be taken from the settlement proceeds for the exclusive benefit of the estate and the estate is responsible for their payment," Judge Riley wrote.

The remainder of damages inure to the exclusive benefit of a nondependent parent or child of the decedent in accordance with I.C. Section 34-23-1-2(d). In addition, because the settlement already allocated the funds which inure to the exclusive benefit of the estate for payment of the expenses, the Court of Appeals directed the attorney's fees also be paid out of the money expressly allocated to the estate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT