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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT