378 P.3d 98
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Dawn Woodson retained Clyde Snow on a 40% contingency for a wrongful-death suit; Thomas Boyle was lead counsel while at Clyde Snow and later continued representing Woodson after moving to Prince Yeates.
- After six years of litigation the parties settled and filed to dismiss, and Clyde Snow filed/restated an attorney lien and objected to dismissal asserting it might intervene to enforce the lien.
- The district court kept the case open solely to resolve Clyde Snow’s claimed lien, ordered briefing/mediation, and allowed Prince Yeates to interplead settlement funds into court.
- Clyde Snow filed a pleading asserting entitlement to the interpled funds; Boyle moved to dismiss that pleading for failure to comply with Rule 24 (no timely motion to intervene).
- The district court denied Boyle’s dismissal motion, concluded Clyde Snow had substantially complied (waiver), and awarded the interpled funds to Clyde Snow; Boyle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clyde Snow timely intervened under Utah R. Civ. P. 24 and § 38-2-7(4) | Clyde Snow argued its lien notice and objections sufficed to invoke court jurisdiction and that intervention was permitted to enforce its lien | Boyle argued Clyde Snow never filed a timely motion to intervene (filed only post-settlement) so it was not a party and the court lacked jurisdiction | Clyde Snow did not timely move to intervene; its post-settlement filings were untimely and insufficient to confer party status |
| Whether the parties waived the Rule 24 requirements by permitting Clyde Snow’s participation | Clyde Snow and the court asserted that prior orders and participation amounted to waiver or substantial compliance | Boyle argued the actual parties objected to Clyde Snow’s involvement and did not allow it to participate such that waiver occurred | No waiver: parties did not allow Clyde Snow to participate on its own behalf; Ostler controls—post-judgment or post-settlement participation does not create waiver |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to award interpled funds to non-parties | Clyde Snow contended the court could resolve the lien within the underlying case and treat interpleaded funds as an interpleader proceeding | Boyle/defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction over non-parties because Clyde Snow never became a party; proper interpleader requires pleadings under Rule 22 | Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of non-parties; orders awarding funds to Clyde Snow were void; Prince Yeates’ motion to "interplead" did not convert non-parties into parties |
| Proper procedural route to enforce an attorney lien | Clyde Snow favored resolving lien within the underlying action and via interpleader | Boyle and precedent favored separate suit or timely intervention under Rule 24/Rule 22 interpleader pleadings | Attorney liens must be enforced either by a timely motion to intervene or by separate suit/interpleader pleading; here Clyde Snow may still bring a separate action to enforce its lien |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostler v. Buhler, 989 P.2d 1073 (Utah 1999) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to order payment to non-party attorney because attorney failed to timely intervene)
- Utah Down Syndrome Found. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 293 P.3d 241 (Utah 2012) (non-parties are not entitled to an appeal as of right; subject-matter jurisdiction limits apply)
- Supernova Media, Inc. v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss, LLC, 297 P.3d 599 (Utah 2013) (motion to intervene is timely only before final settlement, judgment, or dismissal)
- Jenner v. Real Estate Servs., 659 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1983) (courts disfavor post-judgment intervention and require strong justification for exception)