Swindle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2017 Ark. App. 632
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ken Swindle (an attorney) originally filed suit on behalf of Dulce Estevez, then voluntarily dismissed that suit in Aug. 2014; Estevez later refiled pro se and settled with State Farm for $2,000 in Nov. 2015.
- Estevez filed a petition to determine lien (Feb. 4, 2016) asking the court to invalidate Swindle’s claimed attorney’s lien or reduce its amount; Swindle was notified but did not appear unless made a party or subpoenaed.
- The circuit court issued an order (Apr. 15, 2016) finding Swindle had disavowed representation and thus waived any attorney’s lien; the court ordered State Farm to pay the $2,000 settlement to Estevez.
- Swindle had filed a separate complaint against State Farm (Mar. 8, 2016), later amended (Mar. 28, 2016) to assert an $800 lien plus costs related to Estevez’s case and other relief; State Farm responded and moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting issue preclusion.
- The court granted State Farm’s motion, concluding the issue-preclusion/res judicata doctrine barred relitigation of the lien and that Swindle should have appealed the April 15 order; Swindle timely appealed that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion (res judicata) bars Swindle’s claim against State Farm over the attorney’s lien | Swindle: res judicata inapplicable because elements (including privity) are not satisfied | State Farm: the April 15, 2016 order invalidated Swindle’s lien, so issue preclusion bars relitigation | Court of Appeals: reversed — issue preclusion did not bar Swindle’s claim as a matter of law |
| Whether privity exists between an attorney and client for application of issue preclusion when their interests are adverse | Swindle: no privity because interests were adversarial and cannot bind him to a prior adjudication | State Farm: attorney-client relationship establishes privity and bars relitigation | Court of Appeals: attorney-client relationship alone insufficient when parties’ interests are adversary; privity lacking here |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptist Health v. Murphy, 373 S.W.3d 269 (Ark. 2010) (explaining review standard for application of legal doctrines like res judicata)
- Linn v. NationsBank, 14 S.W.3d 500 (Ark. 2000) (defines issue preclusion collateral-estoppel concept)
- Jayel Corp. v. Cochran, 234 S.W.3d 278 (Ark. 2006) (discusses privity for res judicata purposes)
- Wells v. Heath, 602 S.W.2d 665 (Ark. 1980) (supports substantial-identity/privity approach to res judicata)
- Spears v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins., 725 S.W.2d 835 (Ark. 1987) (holds no privity where parties’ interests conflict)