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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT