Estate of Ronald Louis Kalisek Sr v. Bassel B Durfee
322 Mich. App. 142
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A wrongful-death suit arising from a 2014 pedestrian-vehicle collision settled for $110,000 and required court approval of distribution under MCL 600.2922.
- The estate retained attorney Christopher Legghio under a contingency fee agreement that (1) provided 25% of recovery to attorneys after reimbursement of advanced litigation expenses and (2) required the client to pay litigation costs advanced by the lawyer.
- Parties agreed to distribute $25,000 in attorney fees and Legghio sought $10,000 for litigation costs (he later said actual costs exceeded $15,000 but agreed to reduce to $10,000);
- The trial court demanded statutory or court-rule authority for each cost, treated the submission under MCR 2.625 (taxable costs), found many costs unauthorized, and awarded only $469 to Legghio (the remainder returned to the estate);
- Legghio appealed, arguing the court misconstrued the governing law by applying taxable-costs rules instead of contract principles governing reimbursement of costs advanced by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should apply taxable-costs rules (MCR 2.625/RJA) or contract law when approving distribution of attorney-advanced litigation costs | Legghio: costs are recoverable under the fee agreement; court should review under contract law and approve reasonable costs supported by evidence | Estate: (through trial court) costs must be authorized by statute or court rule; treat as taxable costs | Reversed: trial court erred in applying MCR 2.625 and RJA; costs advance reimbursement is governed by the fee contract and contract principles |
| Whether trial court could deny reimbursement for lack of statutory citation or specific RJA authority for each item | Legghio: contractual promise to reimburse sufficient; evidentiary support required, not statutory citations | Estate: required statutory/court-rule authority for each item | Held for Legghio: court must assess costs under contract law and evidentiary support; statutory citation not required to enforce contract reimbursement |
| Whether evidentiary support for specific costs can justify denial | Legghio: submitted invoices, testimony, and exhibits to prove costs incurred | Estate: court found some items unsupported or unreasonable under taxable-cost framework | Court: contract defenses (e.g., lack of proof, unreasonableness, illegality) may justify denial, but trial court must evaluate under contract/evidence standards, not taxable-cost rules |
| Whether requested distribution violated ethical or public-policy limits on contingent fees | Estate/trial court implied concern over excessive deductions reducing attorney fee | Legghio: fee agreement complied with MCR 8.121 and MRPC; he agreed to cost figure | Court: noted MCR 8.121 limits contingency fees and that contracts violating fee caps would be unenforceable; no contingency-fee excess here after proper cost deduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v Breton, 279 Mich. App. 239 (explains trial-court review and MCR 8.121 in wrongful-death settlement approval)
- Island Lake Arbors Condo Ass’n v Meisner & Assoc, PC, 301 Mich. App. 384 (retainer agreements interpreted by their plain meaning under contract law)
- Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich. 457 (contractual terms unenforceable if they violate law or public policy)