In re the Marriage of Dixon v. Samuel J. Stoorman & Associates PC
2015 COA 99
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Samuel J. Stoorman & Associates PC (law firm) represented Kristy Dixon in her 2009 divorce from Brian Dixon; the decree awarded wife $1,500/month maintenance from husband for 72 months.
- The law firm filed a statutory charging-lien notice in June 2008 and amended/seeked foreclosure in May 2009; the trial court entered judgment against wife for the firm's fees.
- In October 2012 the law firm notified husband that its lien attached to maintenance payments and demanded he forward payments to the firm; husband continued paying wife.
- In January 2014 the firm moved to reduce the lien to a money judgment against husband for the unpaid judgment plus interest.
- The trial court denied the motion to enter judgment against husband, holding that court-ordered maintenance is exempt from enforcement of an attorney charging lien under the public policy embodied in § 13-54-102(1)(u), and awarded fees to husband; the Court of Appeals affirmed denial but reversed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney's charging lien can be enforced against a third party by reducing it to a money judgment for court-ordered spousal maintenance | Firm: statutory charging lien attached to sums awarded to client; it properly gave notice and may reduce lien to judgment against third parties (husband) | Husband: maintenance payments are exempt from levy/execution and public policy forbids diverting support to creditors | Court: Charging lien may not be enforced against court-ordered maintenance or maintenance obligations; motion to enter judgment against husband denied |
| Whether husband was entitled to attorney fees for defending against the firm's motion | Husband: firm's motion lacked substantial justification and was frivolous | Firm: issue unsettled; reasonable basis existed to litigate enforcement | Court: firm’s position was substantially justified given lack of controlling precedent; fee award to husband reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fisher, 202 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2009) (charging lien accrues from commencement of services and is collectible by reducing to judgment)
- In re Marriage of Etcheverry, 921 P.2d 82 (Colo. App. 1996) (charging lien may not be asserted against court-ordered child support based on public policy)
- Hall v. Hall-Stradley, 776 P.2d 1166 (Colo. App. 1989) (child support not subject to garnishment; support rights belong to the child)
- Fuqua v. Fuqua, 558 P.2d 801 (Wash. 1977) (public policy bars enforcement of attorney liens against alimony)
- Olszewski v. Jordan, 109 A.3d 910 (Conn. 2015) (collecting authority refusing to permit attorney charging liens on spousal support)
- Bero-Wachs v. Law Office of Logar & Pulver, 157 P.3d 704 (Nev. 2007) (statutory exemptions for support preclude charging liens against maintenance)