Redd v. Hill
2013 UT 35
| Utah | 2013Background
- Hill and Redd entered an August 29, 1997 contingency fee agreement providing Redd receives one-third of all monies paid to Hill related to the action.
- Underlying judgment awarded Hill $6,144,854.79, including punitive damages and prejudgment interest.
- District court awarded Hill $593,034.40 in attorney fees under Lodestar, not contingent-fee proportion.
- Hill paid Redd one-third of the primary judgment ($2,046,236.60) but paid nothing of the supplemental fees award.
- Redd sought one-third of the attorney-fees award via lien and declaratory relief; district court granted summary judgment to Redd.
- On appeal, issues focus on contract interpretation and fee-award law; holding: Redd gets one-third of court-awarded fees but not fees for this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the fee agreement extend to court-awarded attorney fees? | Hill argues ambiguity; contingency fee not clearly covering fees. | Redd argues plain language covers all monies paid for the action, including fees. | Yes; the agreement is unambiguous and covers the fees award. |
| Is the fee agreement compatible with Utah Rules of Professional Conduct? | Hill contends potential improper enrichment or monitoring concerns. | Redd contends agreement complies with Rule 1.5(c) writing requirements. | Yes; the agreement complies with Rule 1.5(c) and is enforceable as written. |
| Is Redd entitled to attorney fees on appeal or for supplemental relief claims? | Hill argues no fee-on-appeal entitlement. | Redd seeks fees for appeal and supplemental relief petition. | Redd is not entitled to fees for this appeal or without proper petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. Reese, 2009 UT 80 (Utah 2009) (contract interpretation when language unambiguous)
- Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51 (Utah 2008) (use extrinsic evidence only if ambiguity exists)
- Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough v. Dawson, 923 P.2d 1366 (Utah 1996) (ambiguity resolved in favor the client when fee disputes arise)
- Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass’n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995) (ambiguous terms must be reasonably supported by contract language)
- WebBank v. Am. Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88 (Utah 2002) (definition of 'all' monies in contract interpretation)
- Softsolutions, Inc. v. Brigham Young Univ., 2000 UT 46 (Utah 2000) (fee award reasonableness is judicially reviewed; contract interpretation standard)