ILNews

COA reverses trial court's ruling in favor of attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an attorney who failed to monitor an estate checking account while serving as the estate’s counsel.

In Corrine R. Finnerty, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Dora Grace Lee, deceased v. Joseph A. Colussi and the Colussi Law Office, No. 39A01-1011-ES-622, Corrine Finnerty appeals a trial court’s ruling in favor of attorney Joseph Colussi, claiming that genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude judgment in favor of Colussi on a legal malpractice claim.

Dora Grace Lee died in 2007, and her designated co-personal representatives – sister Helen Ricketts and granddaughter Christina Mason – hired Colussi as the estate’s counsel.

On February 6, 2007, Colussi mailed Mason and Ricketts their letters testamentary along with the court’s order appointing them as co-personal representatives and letters explaining that either document would allow them to conduct business for the estate. The letter to Mason instructed her to “immediately open up an estate account and handle all expenses and deposit all income in that account” and to forward a check to Colussi to reimburse him for the estate’s filing fee. The letter to Ricketts made no mention of a bank account or filing fee. Colussi had previously advised Mason and Ricketts that either of them could write checks on the estate account, and it was agreed that Mason would retain the estate’s checkbook.

Mason and Ricketts opened an account at Main Source Bank in Madison, Ind., but did not establish an “and” account, which would have required both parties to sign checks. Instead, the two set-up an “or” account, meaning either could write checks independently. Only Mason received a checkbook and monthly account statements from the bank.

Over the next several months, Ricketts and Mason liquidated the estate’s assets and deposited approximately $236,000 into the account. However, unbeknownst to Ricketts and Colussi, Mason began writing checks on the estate account for her personal use, the use of her family and in-laws, and the use of the three other beneficiaries of the will. The majority of the estate funds were depleted by September 11, 2007.

On October 31, 2007, Ricketts contacted Colussi and told him that she suspected problems existed with the account. Ricketts, per Colussi’s instructions, contacted the bank and learned the account was overdrawn. Colussi and Ricketts then reported Mason’s embezzlement to police, and both Ricketts and Mason resigned as co-personal representatives, Colussi withdrew as estate counsel, and Corrine Finnerty was appointed as personal representative.

In February 2009, the estate filed a complaint against Colussi alleging that he had committed legal malpractice by failing “to inform himself as to the status of estate assets or monitor their use.” Colussi filed a counterclaim to recover from the estate unpaid attorney fees. The estate enlisted expert Thomas C. Bigley, Jr., who said Colussi breached the applicable standard of care by failing to control and monitor the checking account. The trial court ruled in favor of Colussi, holding that: “The testimony of Bigley and Finnerty as to their practice as attorneys in monitoring an estate bank account are simply their personal opinions based on their own experiences which renders their opinions as to Colussi’s actions lacking foundation and inadmissible conclusions of law.”

The COA called that conclusion “puzzling,” writing that personal experience is often the source of an expert’s expertise. The appeals court held that in order to prove a breach of duty, the estate needed to prove only that Colussi’s behavior fell below the applicable standard of care.

In his deposition, Bigley testified that the applicable standard of care requires an attorney for an estate to retain the estate’s checkbook, thereby requiring the personal representative to come to the attorney’s office to obtain checks. He also said he would have monitored more carefully the opening of the estate and would have monthly bank statements from the estate sent to his office. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the trial court erred when it ruled in favor of Colussi.

According to the estate, because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Colussi is liable for malpractice, a genuine issue of material fact must necessarily exist with regard to Colussi’s counterclaim for unpaid attorney fees. The appeals court agreed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • This opinion makes me shudder
    According to the court of appeals, any attorney in the state can now offer his personal practice and say "I think other attorneys should do that do" and create a standard of care. So, we become guarantors for the actions of our clients, in essence. About the only way to defend yourself from enterprising legal malpractice lawyers is to make sure you have a clearly defined scope of responsibility in your engagement letter. I hope Finnerty loses at trial (since she should stand in the shoes of the PR who embezzled the money in the first place).

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. 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