364 S.W.3d 558
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- BFRG sued Amber Marshall (a minor) for personal injuries in Jasper County; Wright, then an HLF associate, co-counseled with BFRG; HLF appeared in the case.
- HLF later ceased services; BFRG affiliated with Wright as co-counsel and a new fee-sharing arrangement was made; HLF provided no further services.
- Amber Marshall’s settlement required court approval; HLF claimed a lien for expenses and attorney’s fees but did not file a lien in the Marshall Case.
- After settlement, BFRG sought court approval and to determine the validity and amount of HLF’s lien; the Jackson County case was filed with related motions.
- Settlement Court (Jackson County) issued a June 23, 2009 Order determining HLF’s lien and paid expenses and a quantum meruit fee; HLF rejected the fee, Marshall Case dismissed with prejudice.
- Wright then filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in Jackson County seeking to declare that the Settlement Court’s June 23, 2009 Order was conclusive on HLF’s lien; HLF challenged personal jurisdiction and lack of party status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the Declaratory Judgment Action | HLF argues no identity of parties and no valid final judgment against HLF | BFRG argues Settlement Court order is conclusive | No; order was void for lack of personal jurisdiction over HLF; not barred by res judicata |
| Did Settlement Court have personal jurisdiction over HLF | HLF was not a party to the Marshall Case; no consent or filing | BFRG asserts jurisdiction via section 507.184.3 and HLF’s involvement | Settlement Court lacked personal jurisdiction over HLF; June 23, 2009 Order void as to HLF |
| Whether unfiled demand by HLF to determine its lien equates to an election to have lien determined in original proceeding | HLF’s demand is sufficient to bring lien before court | Unfiled demand is not an affirmative filing constituting submission to jurisdiction | Unfiled demand not enough; lien determination requires affirmative action by attorney or party to bring before court |
Key Cases Cited
- Civic Plaza Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. University Nursing Home, Inc., 504 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1973) (broader res judicata concept including estoppel by judgment)
- Doss v. Howell-Oregon Elec. Coop., Inc., 158 S.W.3d 778 (Mo.App. S.D.2005) (party status requires designation or intervention for judgment against)
- Satterfield v. Southern Railway Co., 287 S.W.2d 395 (Mo.App.1956) (attorney lien may be determined in original case or by motion; not essential to party status)
- Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 53 (Mo. banc 1982) (courts will not allow lien to perish; method of enforcement may be by motion in original case)
- Reed v. Garner Industries, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 945 (Mo.App. E.D.1992) (filing of lien notice by attorney can confer jurisdiction when properly noticed and attended)
- Floyd v. Shaw, 830 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. App. E.D.1992) (settlement approval does not automatically confer lien determination jurisdiction)
- Rudimentary reference to Thompson v. Thompson, 645 S.W.2d 79 (Mo.App. W.D.1982) (consent to jurisdiction via appearance or election to litigate in court)
- J.L.M. v. R.L.C., 132 S.W.3d 279 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (discusses general jurisdiction principles for collateral attack)
- Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo.banc 2009) (conceptual backdrop on court authority to render judgments)