112 So. 3d 243
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kathi Blanchard sought divorce and community-property settlement with Henry Blanchard; Henry’s maritime settlement would pay Kathi 33 1/3% of the personal-injury proceeds within 15 days.
- Judgment of divorce conditioned that 33 1/3% of Henry’s PI settlement be paid to Kathi; periodic spousal support of $500/month until settlement and final payment.
- Kathi, Henry, and lawyers Saunders and Bianca executed a settlement/compromise allocating Kathi’s portion; Kathi later challenged the calculation methods.
- Henry settled PI claim for $500,000; Saunders and Bianca deducted fees/expenses and issued a $24,481.24 payment to Kathi as her share; a disbursement sheet accompanied the check.
- Kathi petitioned in Family Court for declaratory judgment and enforcement of the divorce/settlement, objected to computations, and sought past-due support and costs; Saunders and Bianca answered and asserted frivolous-claim defenses and improper-joinder/venue defenses.
- The trial court dismissed Saunders/Bianca on multiple exceptions; Kathi appealed; the appellate court held part of the exceptions should not have been sustained and ordered transfer of the relevant portion to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-client can sue adversary’s attorney | Kathi asserts a viable claim against Saunders/Bianca. | Saunders/Bianca argue no duty to non-client and no action against adversary’s attorney. | Yes, Kathi may state a claim against Saunders/Bianca. |
| No cause of action vs no right of action standards | Petition alleges miscalculation and improper deductions against her; supports a claim. | Attorneys owe no duty to non-clients; action should be rejected. | No cause of action and no right of action should not have been sustained. |
| Declaratory judgment petition appropriateness | Petition seeks declaration of rights under divorce judgment and settlement. | Court’s declaratory-judgment authority limited; joinder/venue concerns. | Declaratory-judgment relief appropriate; joinder/subject-matter limits addressed. |
| Jurisdiction and transfer strategy | Family Court has jurisdiction over enforcement of settlements between spouses; miscalculation affects settlement. | Saunders/Bianca not proper parties; limited Family Court jurisdiction. | Family Court divested of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Saunders/Bianca portion; transfer to Nineteenth Judicial District Court required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (attorney not generally liable to adversary absent malice or third-party beneficiary status; intent matters for tort claims against attorney)
- Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So.2d 127 (La. 1994) (attorney not liable to adversary; must allege specific malice/intent to harm for tort claims)
- Crockett v. Crockett, 612 So.2d 89 (La. 1993) (related non-client claims against attorney discussed)
- Capital Bank & Trust Co. v. Core, 343 So.2d 284 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1977) (third-party beneficiary context; fraud against attorney possible)