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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT