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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT