Redd v. Hill
304 P.3d 861
Utah2013Background
- Hill and Redd entered a 1997 contingency fee agreement: Redd to receive 1/3 of all monies Hill receives related to the action.
- The underlying action yielded a judgment of $6,144,854.79 for Hill, including punitive damages and pre-judgment interest.
- The district court awarded Hill reasonable attorney fees of $593,034.40 (lodestar); Hill argued for a one-third share for Redd of that fee.
- Redd sought a lien and later declaratory relief for one-third of the attorney fees award; Hill had paid Redd one-third of the primary judgment but not the supplemental fees.
- The court held the agreement is unambiguous and covers the attorney fees award; Redd entitled to one-third of the court-awarded attorney fees; Redd isn’t entitled to fees for this appeal; the agreement complies with the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the fee agreement unambiguously cap a third of fees as well as judgments? | Hill argues the clause is ambiguous and not clearly covering fees. | Redd contends the clause covers all monies related to the action, including fees. | Yes, unambiguous; Redd entitled to one-third of the attorney-fees award. |
| Does the fee agreement conform with the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct? | Hill contends monitoring is needed and fee terms may affect client restoration. | Redd argues the agreement complies with Rule 1.5(c) writing requirements. | Yes, the agreement satisfies Rule 1.5(c) requirements and is enforceable as written. |
| Is Redd entitled to attorney fees for this appeal? | Hill argues no fee through appellate relief. | Redd seeks appellate fees under Rule 33 and supplemental relief petition. | No, Redd is not entitled to appellate fees; no jurisdiction for fee claim in supplemental petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. Reese, 2009 UT 80 (Utah 2009) (interpretation of contract meaning when unambiguous)
- Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51 (Utah 2008) (extrinsic evidence only if contract ambiguous)
- Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough v. Dawson, 923 P.2d 1366 (Utah 1996) (ambiguous terms resolved against the drafter in fee disputes)
- WebBank v. Am. Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88 (Utah 2002) (definition of ambiguity and contract interpretation framework)
- Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass’n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995) (ambiguity standards in contract interpretation)