ILNews

Judges address first impression issue on attorney fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed a contract that included a provision stating the signee is responsible for 40 percent in attorney fees if a hospital had to initiate collection efforts to recover amounts owed.

Mark French admitted his child to Harsha Behavioral Center in Terre Haute. He signed a contract regarding financial responsibility which included the provision “I also acknowledge that I am responsible for reasonable interest, collection fees, attorney fees of the greater of a) forty (40%) or b) $300.00 of the outstanding balance, and/or court costs incurred in connection with any attempt to collect amounts I may owe.”

Harsha billed French for $8,500 in of services, which he never paid. The amount was assigned to Corvee Inc., a collection agency. The trial court entered a default judgment against French awarding the full outstanding balance, but only awarded Corvee $1,000 in attorney fees instead of the $3,400 it was asking for. The amount it wanted was 40 percent of the $8,500.

Corvee filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

“There is no dispute here that the contract unambiguously required French to pay that amount, designated as attorney fees. The issue is whether that provision is enforceable,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes in Corvee, Inc. v. Mark French, No. 84A04-1010-CC-696. “Indiana appellate courts have not yet had the occasion to address an attorney fees provision identical to this one.”

The judges concluded that the attorney-fees provision in the contract is in the nature of a liquidated damages provision. They also found it to be unnecessary to transform the standard attorney-fees provision in a contract into a liquidated-damages provision that may or may not have any correlation to the attorney fees actually incurred.

Citing Smith v. Kendall, 477 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), the judges found there was no evidence that Corvee actually incurred $3,400 in attorney fees in attempting to collect the debt from French.

“To allow Corvee to recover that amount in the absence of such evidence gives rise to the possibility that it will enjoy a windfall at French’s expense, or that it will recover more from French than the outstanding account balance and the necessary costs Corvee actually incurred in collecting it,” wrote Judge Barnes. “Collection actions should permit creditors to recover that to which they are rightfully entitled to make themselves whole, and no more.”

The judges found no basis to second-guess the trial court’s calculations that $1,000 would actually compensate Corvee for its attorney fees.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • SAJ
    The next time that one of us laments the fact that our profession is no longer admired by the public, despite the large number of good deeds done by the majority, we can point to the greed and stupidity exhibited by the small minority. And spring-boarding that into a reported opinion? Priceless.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT