ILNews

Attorney didn't commit conversion, malpractice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed the dismissal of conversion and legal malpractice claims filed in LaPorte County against an Illinois attorney following the settlement of a wrongful death claim in Illinois.

In Jerry Storey v. Theodore S. Leonas Jr. and Leonas & Associates, Ltd., No. 46A03-0806-CV-300, Jerry Storey brought the legal malpractice and conversion claims against attorney Theodore Leonas, alleging he breached his fiduciary duty to Storey. Storey's adult daughter, an Illinois resident, had been killed in a car accident in Michigan City, Ind. Storey's ex-wife, Delia Blair, hired Leonas to file a wrongful death action in Illinois, which doesn't have statutory cap on wrongful death damages.

Before determining whether Indiana or Illinois law applied, Blair settled and received $650,000. She told Leonas to distribute $144,000 to Storey, but Storey declined and attached metaphorical strings to the acceptance of the funds. As a result of the denial of settlement money, Blair told Leonas not to offer Storey any money.

Storey filed his lawsuit in Indiana in 2002, but waited until only a few weeks before the trial in 2005 to file a motion to determine applicable state law. The trial court denied the motion, finding he didn't give reasonable notice to the parties. The trial court also granted Leonas' motion in limine to bar Storey from presenting evidence that Blair's wrongful death action in Illinois could have resulted in more money than she would have received in Indiana and his motion to bar Storey's legal experts from testifying.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding Storey failed to provide "reasonable notice" of his intent to request the application of Illinois law. He waited more than 2 ½ years before raising the law issue, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. When he did raise it, the complaint only mentioned the underlying wrongful death action was filed in Illinois and that Leonas was questioned about Illinois law in his deposition, which is insufficient for his motion to succeed. However, the appellate court found the trial court erred by preventing Storey from introducing evidence of the wrongful death statutory scheme in Illinois because "to pretend that this settlement occurred with everyone knowing with certainty that Indiana law would apply is to ignore the facts, which we cannot countenance and which the choice of law decision does not require," he wrote.

The trial court didn't abuse its discretion in barring Storey's experts from testifying because he waited until discovery was just closing to supply Leonas with a witness list that failed to provide the experts' reports or summaries of their opinions. Because Storey's experts were barred, he couldn't meet his burden of proving legal malpractice, and the claim was properly dismissed, wrote the chief judge.

The trial court also properly dismissed his conversion claim because Leonas was acting on behalf of Blair when he was directed to deny any further disbursement after Storey refused the money. Even if Storey was owed the money from the settlement, at most, Blair's refusal to give him money would be wrongful withholding of funds and failure to pay a debt, which isn't conversion as a matter of law, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT