Acott v. Newton & O'Connor
2011 OK 56
| Okla. | 2011Background
- In 1994, Acott suffered a coma-inducing car crash; he was adjudicated incapacitated and his mother became guardian.
- Acott carried a $250,000 UM policy; the other driver had a $50,000 liability policy.
- The guardian hired Attorney to prosecute the UM claim and interpleader matter; a 40% contingent fee was approved by the guardianship court.
- Claims against insurers were settled; payments of $250,000 and $50,000 were made; Attorney's fee was approved.
- On June 5, 2002, Acott recovered to competence and the guardianship ended.
- One year later, Acott sued Attorney for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging covertly higher and concealed fee terms; the first appeal identified material issues of fact and avoided summary judgment on those grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settled law of the case forecloses re-litigation on remand | Acott argues law of the case bars relitigating fraud, breach, and fiduciary issues | Attorney argues the prior decision does not bind on remand or requires collateral attack | No; law of the case governs but not to foreclose trial of identified issues on remand |
| Whether the remand proceedings improperly treated the suit as collateral attack on the guardianship order | Plaintiff asserts the law of the case requires testing of the intervening issues, not collateral attack | Attorney contends intrinsic fraud theory confines the attack to inside the guardianship order | The settled law of the first appeal governs; the collateral-attack theory cannot rescue summary judgment; trial on material issues required |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on remand given unsettled material facts | Disputed facts identified in the first appeal remained unresolved | Collateral attack or intrinsic fraud theories justified judgment as a matter of law | Summary judgment reversed; remand for trial of material issues of fact identified in the first appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Benham v. Plotner, 795 P.2d 510 (1990 OK) (collateral estoppel requires a prior adjudication on the issue by a party or privy)
- Deloney v. Downey, 944 P.2d 312 (1997 OK) (collateral estoppel requires actual adjudication of the issue)
- Danner v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 949 P.2d 680 (1997 OK) (full and fair opportunity to litigate essential issues)
- Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 987 P.2d 1185 (1999 OK) (extrinsic fraud defined; fraud during trial equals intrinsic/extrinsic distinction)
- Dowell v. Dennis, 998 P.2d 206 (2000 OK CIV APP) (collateral attack limitations; extrinsic fraud versus intrinsic fraud distinction)
- Dowell v. Dennis, 998 P.2d 206 (2000 OK CIV APP) (collateral attack limits and definitions)