In re Estate of Stephanie L. Williams
Court of Appeals No. S-14-018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY
Decided: November 20, 2015
2015-Ohio-4781
Trial Court No. 20071067
Roger W. Hafford, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This is аn appeal from a judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, which distributed the assets of appellee, the Estate of Stephanie L. Williams, and awarded legal fees stemming from a civil action in
Assignment of Error #1
The probate court abused its discretiоn when it denied Nicholas Matassini and the Matassini Law Firm, P.A.s motion to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to
Civil Rule 24(A)(2) .Assignment of Error #2
The probate court abused its discretion when it distributed wrongful death settlement funds without conducting a hearing and providing notice to all parties pursuant to Rules 70 and 71 of the Rules of Superintendance for the Courts of Ohio.
Assignment of Error #3
The probate court abused its discretion when it distributed wrongful dеath settlement funds without accounting for the reimbursement of the reasonable litigation expenses incurred by the attorneys who represented the Estate of Stephanie Williams in the underlying wrongful death litigation.
Assignment of Error #4
The probate court abused its discretion in its distribution of wrongful death settlement funds to Nicholas Matassini and the Matassini Law Firm, P.A. as attorneys [sic] fees when, as stated in his motion to intervene, Mr.
Matassini was not requesting the payment of an attorneys [sic] fee, but rather the reimbursement of the reasonable litigation expenses incurred by the attorneys representing the Estate of Stephanie Williams in the underlying wrongful death litigation. Assignment of Error #5
The probate court abused its discretion when it distributed thirty two thousand and five hundred dollars ($32,500.00) to attorney Roger Hafford, an attorney who wаs not involved in the representation of the Estate of Stephanie Williams in the underlying wrongful death claim, from the wrongful death settlement proceeds without a statement of the services rendered and a statement of the amount of the fees claimed by Mr. Hafford.
Assignment of Error #6
The probate court abused its discretion when it distributed wrongful death settlement funds without ordering the distribution of the fifteen thоusand ($15,000.00) dollars which was ordered in 2007 to be paid into an interest bearing account by Roger Hafford, Esq. and held there pending an order for its distribution by a future order of the court.
{¶ 2} The relevant facts of this case are as follows. On June 3, 2006, Stephanie L. Williams was killed in an automobile accident in Mississippi. She died intestate and was survived by a spouse, Dennis Williams, and two adult sons, Brentel and Brаndon Weatherspoon. Subsequently, the Weatherspoon brothers retained appellants Nicholas
{¶ 3} In his representation of the Weatherspoon brothers, attorney Ferrell referred the products liability case to attorneys Jerry M. White and C. Tab Turner of Turner & Associates, P.A., of North Little Rock, Arkansas. The record does not reveal precisely when White and Turner were brought into the case, but the docket sheet from that case includes a motion, dated December 7, 2007, for Turner to appear pro hac vice. The motion was granted. Similarly, a docket entry dated May 20, 2008, reflects a motion for Jerry White to appear pro hac vice. That motion was also granted. The docket entries throughout that case reveal that attorneys White, Turner and Ferrell regularly represented the interests of the Weatherspoon brothers until the case was concluded. Ultimately,
{¶ 4} Previously, on February 28, 2007, Dennis Ragas, Dennis Williams father, filed an application for authority to administer the estate of Stephanie L. Williams, in the court below. In an entry dated April 19, 2007, Ragas was namеd the administrator of the estate and Roger W. Hafford was listed as the attorney. Subsequently, the court granted a motion requesting attorney Ferrell be admitted pro hac vice to represent the interests of the Weatherspoon brothers in the estate action below. On November 7, 2007, the parties to the estate reached a settlement agreement that was аpproved by the court. Initially, under the settlement, the parties agreed that Dennis Ragas and Brentel Weatherspoon would act as co-administrators in the administration of the estate. The main purpose of that agreement, however, was to divide the proceeds of an insurance claim the estate had with Progressive Insurance Company. To that end, the agreement provided in relevant part:
6. Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) shall be paid from the net proceeds and deposited to the escrow account of Attorney Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr. and shall be used at his discretion for expenses in the products liability wrongful death claim in Mississippi;
{¶ 6} The court-ordered mediation failed. Consequently, attorney Hafford filed a motion to approve a settlement agreement entered into by the executor, the heirs of Stephanie Williams, and attorney Hafford regarding the distribution of the settlement funds. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Weatherspoon brothers, Dennis Williams, Dennis Ragas, and attorney Hafford agreed to distribute the $250,000 settlement funds as follows: Brentel Weatherspoon, Brandon Weatherspoon, and Dennis Williams each to receive $63,000, Denis Ragas to receive $8,000, and attorney Hafford to receive $53,000 as attorney fees. Attorney White then filed a motion to appear pro hac
{¶ 7} On July 19, 2012, the case proceeded to a hearing on the pending motions. The court initially permitted White to provisionally appear and participate in the hearing. White asserted that because he represented the Weatherspoon brothers in the underlying litigation against Nissan, which resulted in the settlement funds at issue, and because there were litigation expenses in that case that needed to be addressed, he should be permitted to appear and participate in this case. Upon questioning by the court, however, both attorney Hafford and Brentel Weatherspoon denied that White represented the Weatherspoon brothers. Brentel stated that he only signed a retainer agreement with Nick Matassini, who was not at the hearing. He further signed an affidavit to that fact which was filed with the court. The court therefore denied Whites motion to appear pro hac vice. The court determined that because there was no written contract or nexus between White and the Weatherspoon brothers, any pursuit of legal fees and expenses for the litigation in Mississippi could only appropriately be pursued by attorney Matassini or through an appropriately filed claim against the estate. It then became clear that the Weatherspoon brothers were not represented by counsel at the hearing below.1 The court noted that Matassini was the attorney who should be in court to represent the interests of the Weatherspoon brothers. However, following Brentels assurances that he was
{¶ 8} Following the hearing, Tab Turner & Associates, P.A. (Turner), filed a motion to intervene in the action below. Turner asserted that it had a protectable interest (attorney fees аnd litigation expenses) in the settlement proceeds which were then held by the court because of the work it had done to procure the settlement in the underlying wrongful death action. Turner did not file a claim against the estate.
{¶ 9} On November 22, 2013, the lower court issued a judgment on all pending matters. In pertinent part, the court denied the Turner motion to intervene, noting that Turner had not supported its motion with any evidence of a contractual relationship or proof of representation between Turner and the Weatherspoon brothers. The court further determined that attorney Matassini was the only professional in a position to pursue payment for legal fees and expenses directly from the estate, and that he had not done so. The court therefore granted Matassini 14 days to file any motions with respect to the distribution of funds in the estate and ordered that if Matassini did not file any motions, the court would proceed with the distribution of funds and the closing of the estate.
{¶ 10} On December 10, 2013, appellants, represented by Ohio counsel, filed a motion to intervene in the case. Appellants clаimed that pursuant to their retainer agreement with the Weatherspoon brothers, they were entitled to recover attorney fees
{¶ 11} On March 21, 2014, the lower сourt issued a judgment entry on all pending motions. Initially, the court quoted the following from its November 22, 2013 judgment entry, and stated that the quoted section formed a portion of the basis for the courts decision:
* * * any pursuit of legal fees and expenses for the litigation in Mississippi * * * in this estate matter, could only be appropriately pursued by Attorney Mattassini [sic], who apparently has nоt been in communication with the Weatherspoon brothers for an extended period of time; or through an appropriately filed claim against the estate in this matter. No such relief has been requested by Attorney Mattassini [sic], nor has any such claim against the estate been filed, and the prescribed time for doing so has now lapsed.
It is clear from the totality of thе circumstances that there is an enormous breakdown of relationships and proper documentation amongst
the attorneys involved in the representation in the underlying federal litigation. All of the actual parties at various times before the Court have indicated a complete lack of knowledge of some of the attorneys claiming to represent them. They have indicated no communication for extended periods of time. They have put forth that the only professional they established an attorney/client relationship with is Attorney Mattassini [sic], and/or Attorney Hafford. It is further noted that throughout this protracted action, there was no finalized settlement actually achieved until Attorney Hafford began his latest involvement and current representation.
{¶ 12} The court then reiterated that the dispute over the legal fees and expenses from the unrelated civil litigation in Mississippi is that of a contractual dispute amongst or between attorneys. There are clear remedies available under the law to pursue payment under any such contracts or agreements, through other appropriate legal forums.
{¶ 13} Based on these findings, the court determined that equity required some distribution to Attorney Matassini, as the original attorney hired to pursue the underlying claim, but that how that portion was to be divided amongst other counsel was a matter of contract law to be pursued in some other appropriate forum. The court then denied Matassinis motion tо intervene, but granted his alternative motion for a distribution of a portion of the fund, awarding him $100,000, or 40 percent of the settlement fund. The court further awarded Dennis Williams, Brandon Weatherspoon and Brentel
{¶ 14} In their first assignment of error, appellants assert that the lower court еrred in denying their motion to intervene.
{¶ 15} In the proceedings below, appellants sought to intervene as of right, under
{¶ 16} Upon review, we cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion in denying appellants motion to intervenе. First, we note that appellants did not file, along with their motion, a pleading setting forth their claim, as required by
{¶ 17} The controversy in this case, however, is over the litigation expenses incurred in obtaining the settlement agreement with Nissan. Those expenses were evidently incurred by attorneys Turner and White. No contract between the Matassini
{¶ 18} Appellants remaining assignments of error challenge various aspects of the trial courts distribution of the settlement proceeds and other monies. It is well established that an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene is limited solely to the issue of intervention. State ex rel. Montgomery v. City of Columbus, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-963, 2003-Ohio-2658, ¶ 33. Appellants were not parties to the action below and have no standing to challenge any other aspеct of the trial courts order. Id.; see also Sawicki, supra, at ¶ 18; Fouche v. Denihan, 66 Ohio App.3d 120, 126, 583 N.E.2d 457 (10th Dist.1990). The second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are not well-taken.
{¶ 19} On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has been done the parties complaining and the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed. Appellants are ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J. CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohios Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Courts web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.