424 P.3d 1098
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2007 Plaintiff retained Clyde Snow on a contingency-fee agreement (CFA) securing a 40% interest via an attorney’s lien; Clyde Snow assigned Boyle to the matter.
- Boyle left Clyde Snow in 2010 and joined Prince Yeates; Plaintiff’s claim followed Boyle to Prince Yeates.
- Clyde Snow sent a demand letter in 2010, later filed notices and restated notices of attorney’s lien after the 2013 settlement of the wrongful-death claim; the district court kept the case open to resolve the lien.
- Prince Yeates interpleaded the settlement funds, disclaimed any interest, and assigned any potential interest to Boyle and another attorney; Clyde Snow sued to recover the interpleaded funds.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court awarded the entire interpleaded funds to Clyde Snow, finding its claimed lien and fee methodology reasonable; Boyle appealed.
- On remand from the Utah Supreme Court (which held Boyle waived certain procedural objections), Boyle raised three challenges: imperfect perfection of the lien under Utah Code § 38-2-7; effect of an assignment from Prince Yeates to Boyle; and a due-process claim that he lacked a full and fair hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boyle) | Defendant's Argument (Clyde Snow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clyde Snow perfected its attorney’s lien under Utah Code § 38-2-7 | Clyde Snow failed to make required pre-lien demand and otherwise failed to comply with statutory perfection requirements | Clyde Snow made the required demand (July 2010) and complied with statutory requirements before restating its lien | Court declined to address merits because Boyle inadequately briefed the issue; record shows Clyde Snow made a timely demand and Boyle failed to carry burden of persuasion |
| Whether Prince Yeates’s assignment to Boyle defeated Clyde Snow’s lien entitlement | Boyle argued Prince Yeates assigned 80% of its rights to him, limiting what it could assign and entitling Boyle to more of the funds | Prince Yeates disclaimed interest and assigned any interest to Boyle, but Prince Yeates’s contract required Boyle to reimburse Clyde Snow for costs and fees; no excess funds existed | Court found Boyle did not develop a reasoned argument; assignment was immaterial because no excess interpleaded funds existed and Boyle failed to show error |
| Whether Boyle was denied due process / a full and fair opportunity to be heard | Boyle claimed he was an assignee of Plaintiff’s rights and therefore entitled to full procedural protections and review of factors applied by the court | Clyde Snow and the court point to the evidentiary hearing, cross-examination, expert testimony, and the court’s factor-based analysis | Court declined to consider the claim on the merits due to inadequate briefing; record reflects Boyle participated in hearing and the court applied relevant factors |
| Appropriate appellate remedy and disposition | Boyle sought reversal or reconsideration of fee award and entitlement to additional fees | Clyde Snow sought affirmation and dismissal of collateral fee claims | Court affirmed the district court’s award to Clyde Snow and remanded solely to dismiss Boyle’s claim for additional attorney fees with prejudice and disburse any remaining funds accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions PC, 378 P.3d 98 (Utah Ct. App.) (discussion of prior appellate disposition reversed by the Utah Supreme Court)
- Bank of America v. Adamson, 391 P.3d 196 (Utah 2017) (an appellant must provide reasoned analysis and cite legal authority and record; failure to do so forfeits review)
- Sunridge Dev. Corp. v. RB & G Eng’g, Inc., 230 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2010) (definition and principles governing assignment of contract rights)