Sprole v. Sprole
152 A.D.3d 1094
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Robert Sprole) owed defendant Linda Sprole $60,000 under a divorce equitable-distribution judgment due January 1, 2016.
- Multiple former attorneys for Linda (Alderman; Gingold; Kirby; Sinicki) asserted charging liens or judgments against Linda for unpaid legal fees, claiming interests in that $60,000.
- Alderman served a notice of charging lien on plaintiff indicating payments to Linda would be subject to the lien; other attorneys had obtained charging liens or judgments earlier.
- To avoid potential multiple liability, plaintiff commenced an interpleader action and deposited the $60,000 into escrow, naming Linda and her prior attorneys as defendants.
- Linda moved to dismiss the interpleader complaint on several grounds (failure to state a claim, failure to join a necessary party, lack of hearing, and other objections); Supreme Court denied the motion, and Linda appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interpleader was proper | Interpleader was necessary because plaintiff faced potential multiple liability from competing attorney liens | Linda argued the action was frivolous and plaintiff improperly withheld funds | Held: Interpleader proper; plaintiff faced real risk of liability and could deposit funds in escrow pending resolution |
| Whether plaintiff committed grand larceny by depositing funds | Plaintiff acted in good faith by placing funds in escrow and seeking judicial resolution | Linda alleged criminality for withholding the $60,000 | Held: No grand larceny; interpleader deposit in counsel escrow pending adjudication was lawful |
| Whether failure to join David Tamber was fatal | Plaintiff named Alderman and the law firm; plaintiff argued the firm (and Alderman) were proper parties | Linda argued Tamber (who signed the retainer) was the necessary party | Held: Tamber not necessary; the retainer was with the firm and Alderman appeared as counsel |
| Whether court erred by resolving the dismissal motion without a hearing | Plaintiff proceeded on submissions and contends facts were undisputed | Linda contended a hearing was required before denying dismissal | Held: No error; motion was submitted with affidavits/exhibits, no material factual issues required a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, 85 N.Y.2d 462 (confirming attorney charging lien creates equitable ownership interest in client's cause of action)
- Kaplan v. Reuss, 113 A.D.2d 184 (charging lien can be enforced against adversary who retains or knowingly pays proceeds to client)
- Finn v. Church for the Art of Living, Inc., 90 A.D.3d 826 (interpleader deposit in counsel escrow not criminal)
- Shields v. Carbone, 99 A.D.3d 1055 (definition and use of stakeholder/interpleader procedure)
- Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Moore, 91 A.D.2d 759 (interpleader principles)
- Haser v. Haser, 271 A.D.2d 253 (enforcement of charging lien against equitable-distribution proceeds)
- Omahen v. Omahen, 309 A.D.2d 1019 (resolving motions on submission without a hearing when no material factual issues exist)