Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock
235 Ariz. 204
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Blum, the plaintiff, contracted with Cowan and Haddock for services, including Blum's medical expertise on undue influence, under a fee provision; Cowan/Haddock allegedly failed to pay.
- Blum obtained a October 2012 final judgment for $18,708.74 plus attorney fees and costs after a bench trial.
- Blum pursued garnishment in November 2012; Cowan/Haddock appealed the judgment and sought a stay of execution.
- In 2013 the trial court denied the stay and entered judgments against garnishees; Blum then sought post-judgment attorney fees for garnishment and related proceedings, which the court awarded.
- On appeal, the court vacated the garnishment-fee award under § 12-1580(E) and remanded for redetermination of the Rule 60(c) and stay-fee amounts, while holding the post-judgment Rule 60(c)/stay fees could be contract-based.
- The court held garnishment fees are governed by the statutory scheme (§ 12-1580(E)) and cannot be displaced by contractual fee provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are post-judgment fees for Rule 60(c) motion and stay authorized by the contract? | Blum; contract controls, entitling fees for post-judgment motions. | Cowan/Haddock; fees are excessive or not authorized under contract in the post-judgment context. | Yes; contract controls and authorizes post-judgment fees. |
| May garnishment attorney fees be awarded under § 12-341.01(A) in a purely statutory garnishment action? | Blum; contractual and statutory bases justify fees for garnishment-related work. | Cowan/Haddock; § 12-341.01(A) should apply to post-judgment garnishment fees. | No; garnishment is a statutory, independent action; § 12-341.01(A) does not apply. |
| Can a party waive the statutory limit on garnishment attorney fees under § 12-1580(E) by contract? | Blum; contract can govern the award. | Cowan/Haddock; waiver of statutory rights should be allowed by contract. | No; § 12-1580(E) rights cannot be waived; statutory limits apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty. Ass’n v. Simons, 216 Ariz. 266 (App. 2007) (contractual attorney-fee provisions control awards)
- Patrick v. Associated Drygoods Corp., 20 Ariz. App. 6 (1973) (garnishment remedy is statutory and exclusive)
- Hull v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 209 Ariz. 256 (App. 2004) (remedies created by statute are exclusive)
- Andrew Brown Co. v. Painters Warehouse, Inc., 11 Ariz. App. 571 (App. 1970) (garnishment exists by statute and follows statutory chart)
- Verma v. Stuhr, 223 Ariz. 144 (App. 2009) (statutory rights may not be waived where prohibited by statute)
- First Credit Union v. Courtney, 233 Ariz. 105 (App. 2013) (plain language of statute governs when language is clear)