R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg
949 N.E.2d 372
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Turner, a general contractor, sued the Town of Brownsburg for tortious interference with a contract, quantum meruit, and breach of a third-party beneficiary duty related to a settlement with BMBC.
- Turner and BMBC disputed project-related settlement; BMBC never approved the proposed settlement; the Town’s counsel reviewed it and advised against approval.
- The May 18, 2010 judgment granted partial summary judgment on Count I (tortious interference) and dismissed remaining counts, with costs to be assessed against Turner but no explicit attorney’s-fees clause.
- On July 16, 2010, the Town petitioned for attorney’s fees and expenses ($27,410.67) under Indiana Code sections 34-52-1-1(b) and 34-13-3-21, arguing Turner's suit was frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.
- Turner appealed the post-judgment attorney’s-fees award, challenging timeliness and the merits of the fee award; the appellate court affirmed the fee award.
- The court held that costs could include attorney’s fees under the cited statutes, that the May 18, 2010 judgment did authorize a post-judgment fee award, that such an award may be sought within sixty days after final judgment, and that the record supports a finding of frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can attorney's fees be awarded as costs against Turner post-judgment? | Turner argues fees were not included in the May judgment. | Town asserts costs include attorney’s fees under statutes. | Yes; fees may be awarded as costs under the statutes. |
| Did the May 18, 2010 judgment implicitly reserve a future fees award? | Judgment did not expressly grant fees. | Judgment language “costs to be assessed” contemplated future fee award. | Yes; the May judgment impliedly authorized post-judgment fees. |
| Was the post-judgment fee petition timely under Indiana practice? | A post-judgment fee petition is untimely after final judgment. | Post-judgment fee petitions may be filed within sixty days after final judgment. | Timely; sixty-day window applies prospectively for post-judgment requests. |
| Were Turner’s claims frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless to justify fees? | Turner’s suit had merits and was properly pled. | Claims, especially tortious interference, were barred or failed under Tort Claims Act and pleading standards. | Yes; the record supports findings of frivolous, unreasonable, and/or groundless claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daurer v. Mallon, 597 N.E.2d 334 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (post-judgment fee considerations permitted; fees after summary judgment)
- Kintzele v. Przybylinski, 670 N.E.2d 101 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (fees may be sought after final adjudication; not precluded before final judgment)
- Kahn v. Cundiff, 533 N.E.2d 164 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (fees issue post-judgment permissible in some contexts)
- D.S.I. v. Natare Corp., 742 N.E.2d 15 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (strict construction of fee-shifting statutes; express language matters)
- Smyth v. Hester, 901 N.E.2d 25 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (framework for reviewing attorney’s-fee awards under 34-52-1-1)
- Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind.1994) (elements for tortious interference proof in Indiana)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind.2003) (final judgment disposes of all issues as to all parties)