Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions P.C.
2017 UT 57
| Utah | 2017Background
- Plaintiff pursued a wrongful-death suit beginning in 2007; Clyde Snow represented the plaintiff until June 2010, after which Boyle left Clyde Snow and continued representation at Prince Yeates.
- Clyde Snow filed a notice of lien on July 7, 2010 for fees alleged to be owed for work through June 2010.
- The case settled in 2013; the district court dismissed the underlying claims with prejudice but retained jurisdiction to resolve Clyde Snow’s attorney-lien claim after Clyde Snow objected to dismissal.
- The court ordered mediation and later allowed Prince Yeates to interplead disputed settlement funds; Prince Yeates was dismissed from liability regarding those funds.
- Clyde Snow sued to foreclose its lien on the interpleaded funds; Boyle filed a motion to dismiss arguing Clyde Snow had not properly intervened under Rule 24, but Boyle also answered and counterclaimed and litigated competing fee claims.
- The district court denied Boyle’s Rule 24 objection as waived and awarded fees to Clyde Snow; the court of appeals reversed on the ground Boyle had not preserved the intervention objection; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clyde Snow’s failure to file a timely, proper Rule 24 intervention deprived the district court of jurisdiction to determine the attorney-lien claim | Boyle argued Clyde Snow never properly intervened under Rule 24, so the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien | Clyde Snow (and the district court) argued procedural defects were waived because Boyle and others acquiesced and litigated the fee dispute in the pending case | The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that intervention was procedurally deficient but held Boyle waived any objection to intervention by acquiescing and participating in litigation over fees |
| Whether Boyle’s conduct preserved the right to challenge intervention on appeal | Boyle maintained he preserved the challenge and that defendants’ objections should control | Clyde Snow argued Boyle’s participation, mediation involvement, agreement to interplead funds, and pursuit of competing fees waived any procedural objection | Court held Boyle’s active conduct (mediation, agreeing to interpleader, litigating fee claims) amounted to waiver, so he could not raise the intervention objection on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (standard for reviewing court of appeals’ decision and correctness review)
- State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (abrogated Verde on other grounds noted)
- State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (standards for appellate review of lower-court legal conclusions)
- Ostler v. Buhler, 989 P.2d 1073 (Utah 1999) (discussing waiver and separate-proceeding rule for attorney liens)
- Midvale Motors, Inc. v. Saunders, 442 P.2d 938 (Utah 1968) (traditional rule that attorney liens normally must be pursued in a separate action absent special circumstances)