ILNews

Divided Supreme Court rules on attorney fees case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed the award of attorney fees to an Indiana town, although two justices disagreed and would have reversed the trial court.

In R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg, No. 32S01-1109-PL-573, the trial court had dismissed R.L. Turner Corp.’s claims of tortious interference with a contractual relationship, quantum meruit, and breach of duty to a third-party beneficiary after Brownsburg allegedly interfered with a settlement agreement between R.L. Turner and the Brownsburg Municipal Building Corp. concerning a construction project.

The trial court’s judgment provided for “costs to be assessed” against R.L. Turner but didn’t specifically mention attorney fees. Brownsburg later filed a petition seeking more than $27,000 in attorney fees and expenses, which the trial court granted.

Last year, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the trial court had the authority to award the fees and the record supported the finding that R.L. Turner’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.

Turner asked the justices to take the case, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the attorney fees motion after the case had been dismissed. But the justices disagreed.

“Instead, we think of a court’s ruling as deciding the case such that any of its acts after judgment implicate not its jurisdiction, but rather court rules and judicial doctrines that safeguard the finality of judgments,” Chief Justice Randall Shepard wrote. “So, the question here is one of procedural error, not jurisdiction.”

Looking at the concept of awarding “costs” to the prevailing party, the justices held that means what it usually means – filing fees and witness fees, not the trial court’s action in denying or granting the town’s request for attorney fees.

Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s application of pre-1993 federal rules for petitions on attorney fees, the Indiana justices found that guidance instructive.

“A petition for fees does not disturb the merits of an earlier judgment or order, so it does not implicate Indiana Trial Rules 59(C) or 60(B),” Shepard wrote. “As such, none of those respective time limits govern a petition for attorneys’ fees.  Instead, trial courts must use their discretion to prevent unfairness to parties facing petitions for fees. A request for attorneys’ fees almost by definition is not ripe for consideration until after the main event reaches an end. Entertaining such petitions post-judgment is virtually the norm. To be sure, a request for fees is in some sense an equitable petition, and it might be that an extremely tardy request should fall on deaf ears due to lack of notice or staleness.”

The court also summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals’ review of the record that special findings weren’t made on this case.

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson joined in a separate opinion that concurred in part but dissented on the second aspect relating to the award’s defectiveness for want of special findings. The pair found that no hearing was held on the matter and the trial court didn’t indicate why it concluded that way, and so the two justices would have reversed the award on that point and remanded.

 

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

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. Bill Satterlee is, indeed, a true jazz aficionado. Part of my legal career was spent as an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso. Bill was instrumental (no pun intended) in introducing me to jazz music, thereby fostering my love for this genre. We would, occasionally, travel to Chicago on weekends and sit in on some outstanding jazz sessions at Andy's on Hubbard Street. Had it not been for Bill's love of jazz music, I never would have had the good fortune of hearing it played live at Andy's. And, most likely, I might never have begun listening to it as much as I do. Thanks, Bill.

  2. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

  3. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

  4. Indiana up holds this behavior. the state police know they got it made.

  5. Additional Points: -Civility in the profession: Treating others with respect will not only move others to respect you, it will show a shared respect for the legal system we are all sworn to protect. When attorneys engage in unnecessary personal attacks, they lose the respect and favor of judges, jurors, the person being attacked, and others witnessing or reading the communication. It's not always easy to put anger aside, but if you don't, you will lose respect, credibility, cases, clients & jobs or job opportunities. -Read Rule 22 of the Admission & Discipline Rules. Capture that spirit and apply those principles in your daily work. -Strive to represent clients in a manner that communicates the importance you place on the legal matter you're privileged to handle for them. -There are good lawyers of all ages, but no one is perfect. Older lawyers can learn valuable skills from younger lawyers who tend to be more adept with new technologies that can improve work quality and speed. Older lawyers have already tackled more legal issues and worked through more of the problems encountered when representing clients on various types of legal matters. If there's mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other, it will help make both attorneys better lawyers. -Erosion of the public trust in lawyers wears down public confidence in the rule of law. Always keep your duty to the profession in mind. -You can learn so much by asking questions & actively listening to instructions and advice from more experienced attorneys, regardless of how many years or decades you've each practiced law. Don't miss out on that chance.

ADVERTISEMENT