J. Michael Kummerer v. C. Richard Marshall, 971 N.E.2d 198

Kummerer, an attorney, was suspended in 2007 and transferred his contingency-fee cases to Marshall.
Marshall took four cases; three settled with equal fee splits; the fourth settled for $750,000 with a $275,000 client fee.
Marshall paid himself $125,000 and later $12,500 of the fourth-case fee; dispute arose over proportional fee division.
Marshall demanded a 10/90 split arguing Rule 1.5 proportionality; Kummerer demanded equal 50/50 share.
Trial court found no fraud, upheld forecast allocation, and concluded equal forecasted work justified the fee split; judgment to Kummerer for $137,500.
Prejudgment interest was denied; Kummerer moved to correct errors; trial court denied both requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prejudgment interest appropriate here?	Kummerer argues interest should apply when damages are calculable.	Marshall contends damages required court judgment, not simple calculation.	Denial upheld; interest not appropriate because damages required court judgment.
Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the correction of errors?	Kummerer claims lack of Trial Rule 52 findings on prejudgment-interest issue.	Court had findings showing forecasted-fee reasonableness and no error.	No abuse; findings supported denial of prejudgment interest

Olcott Int’l & Co. v. Micro Data Base Sys., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (simple calculation damages suitable for prejudgment interest when ascertainable)
Town of New Ross v. Feretti, 815 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (judgment needed; no prejudgment interest where expert judgment required)
Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (damages clarity affects prejudgment interest)
Tracy v. Morell, 948 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (promissory-note-like damages with calculable amounts )
Hayes v. Chapman, 894 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (mechanics’ lien damages; calculability affects prejudgment interest)