Article

Note: As part of a worker’s compensation case against several defendants, Jason DuBois (Client) hired Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C. (Law Firm) as legal representation. Subsequently, the individual attorneys from Law Firm representing Client left the Law Firm but continued to represent Client. When Client terminated the relationship with Law Firm, Law Firm intervened in the ongoing worker’s compensation action to assert an attorney-fee lien claiming outstanding legal fees and expenses. After Client received a settlement in the underlying action, the trial court ordered the funds be deposited in an interest bearing account pending further order. When the trial court entered judgment in favor of Client finding that Law Firm was not entitled to any fees or reimbursement expenses, Law Firm filed a motion to stay execution of judgment, posting a USD 199,185 letter of credit as security.

After the trial court granted the requested stay of execution, the judgment denying any fees or expenses owed to Law Firm was affirmed on appeal and a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of Alabama was quashed following oral arguments. Accordingly, Client filed a motion in the trial court requesting disbursement of the settlement funds and later moved for a determination of postjudgment interest. Rejecting Law Firm’s argument that there was no “money judgment” from which to calculate interest, the trial court granted Client’s motion and awarded Client postjudgment interest under a sealed order. Law Firm appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama, Stewart, Parker, Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim and Mitchell, JJ., reversed.

Law Firm argued that because “the stay of the judgment did not trigger the accrual of postjudgment interest”, the trial court erred in awarding Client the same. Noting the appropriate statute and relevant precedent, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he settlement sum interpleaded into court from the underlying case ‘was not money that [Law Firm] owed to [Client] pursuant to any note, mortgage, judgment, or other indebtedness, nor was it awarded as the result of any legal claims against [Law Firm].’” Accordingly, the judgment did not represent a “money judgment” against Law Firm and the trial court erred by awarding Client postjudgment interest to be paid by Law Firm regarding the settlement from the original defendants.

[MJK]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of the ICC or Coastline Solutions.