ILNews

COA dismisses attorney's appeal

Jennifer Nelson
December 11, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed an attorney's interlocutory appeal of the order he pay attorney's fees as a discovery sanction because the attorney didn't timely file his appeal.

In Warren Johnson v. The Estate of Timothy P. Brazill, Brian J. Zaiger; Judy Hester; and David A. Anderson and Anderson & Associates, No. 29A02-0902-CV-126, attorney David Anderson represented Warren Johnson in his claim against the estate of deceased attorney Timothy P. Brazill. Johnson claimed Brazill hadn't repaid a loan to him, but it was later discovered Johnson owed Brazill money based on a promissory note.

Anderson tried to introduce certain e-mails sent between Brazill and Johnson that he got from one of Brazill's former law partners, but the trial court denied entering them as evidence. Anderson then tried getting the e-mails through a subpoena from Judy Hester, who was the last member of the Smyth Brazill Hester law firm before it split.

Hester then filed a motion to intervene in the action and sought attorney's fees for what she said were Anderson's continued discovery abuses. On Sept. 22, 2008, the trial court granted Hester's motion and ordered Johnson and Anderson to pay her nearly $2,500 in fees. The court also ordered the estate to submit an attorney fees affidavit within 10 days of the order. On Oct. 20, 2008, the trial court denied Anderson's motion to reconsider and ordered him to pay nearly $4,500 in attorney's fees to the estate. On Nov. 7, 2008, the trial court vacated its finding against Johnson, but upheld the ruling against Anderson. The court reaffirmed its findings against Johnson again in a Dec. 30, 2008, clarification.

Anderson filed a notice of appeal Jan. 22, 2009.

The parties didn't raise the timeliness of Anderson's appeal as an issue, but the Court of Appeals found Anderson's Jan. 22 appeal was untimely and dismissed the case. Anderson appealed from the Dec. 30 order, but he should have filed his appeal within 30 days of the Sept. 22 order if he wanted to challenge the award of fees to Hester, ruled the appellate court. With regards to the estate, Anderson should have filed his appeal within 30 days of the Oct. 20 order that dictated the amount of fees to go to the estate.

Instead, Anderson filed motions to reconsider, which the trial court denied, and asked the trial court to clarify its order, which it did Dec. 30. Even though the orders were modified with regards to Johnson and another attorney, the order that Anderson pay attorney's fees to Hester and the estate was constant and should have been appealed prior to Jan. 22, 2009.

"Otherwise, a party ordered to pay money could repeatedly move the court to reconsider or clarify its original order, and if the trial court then modified that order in a way that did not affect the moving party's obligations under the original order, that party could then appeal from the trial court's order denying the motion to reconsider," wrote Judge Paul Mathias. "This could allow a party to potentially delay compliance with the trial court's order, which is precisely what Trial Rule 53.4 is designed to prevent."

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT