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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT