Warren v. Stanfield
2012 OK 8
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Stanfield was injured in 1992 with an annuity from MetLife providing periodic payments.
- Assignments of Stanfield’s annuity rights occurred in 1996-1998, culminating in Wentworth’s judgment against Stanfield.
- Guardian Mildred Stanfield was appointed in Seminole County, Oklahoma, and Warren entered a contingent fee agreement in 2001 for Stanfield’s ward’s representation.
- The guardian sought court approval in 2009 for the 2001 contingency fee contract and related fees; the District Court denied for several reasons including timing.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed denial but this Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding jurisdiction to approve contingent fees and refuting automatic denial due to delay in seeking approval.
- The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the contingent fee should be approved and at what amount, if any.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a guardianship court has jurisdiction to approve a contingent fee contract | Warren argues the contract is within guardianship authority and thus subject to court approval. | Guardian contends contingent fees may be outside the Act and not subject to court approval. | Yes; guardianship court has jurisdiction to approve. |
| Whether court approval was required prior to payment under §4-403(C) | Contingent fee approval is not conditioned on prior payment. | Payment before approval violates §4-403(C). | No; §4-403(C) is not a prepayment condition for approval of a contingent fee. |
| Whether delay in seeking approval bars relief (laches/time) | Delay should not bar approval in an open and continuing guardianship. | Delay justifies denial. | Delay alone does not bar approval; time is not a dispositive bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berryhill v. Spillers, 105 Okla. 255, 232 P. 376 (1924 OK) (contingent fees approved by court enforceable against estate)
- Mason v. Ford, 102 Okla. 257, 226 P. 346 (1924 OK) (special order for attorney’s fee not subject to collateral attack in final settlement)
- Emery v. Goff, 198 Okla. 534, 180 P.2d 175 (1947 OK) (contingent fees approved by court enforceable; role of hindsight in setting fees)
- Sneed v. Sneed, 681 P.2d 754 (1984 OK) (trial court must consider all factors for contingent fees in guardianship minors matters)
- Abel v. Tisdale, 619 P.2d 608 (1980 OK) (court protection of minor’s interests; fees determined after considering circumstances)