Page 1
Court of Appeal Declares That 2005 Order for Attorney Fees Was in Excess of Jurisdiction
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday declared the invalidity of an order made in a wrongful death case more than 17 years ago because it was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne K. Richardson, sitting on assignment to Div. Three, authored the unpublished opinion. It reverses a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang awarding declaratory relief to Jackie Lynn Reed, widow of a lawyer, Brian Reed.
Chang held that the widow is entitled to continue to take $500 out of a $2,000 monthly payment stemming from a wrongful death judgment against a man who is imprisoned for murder. The slayer, Victor Ransom, had only one asset from which the default judgment against him could be satisfied: a monthly annuity.
Order by Jackson
Under a Sept. 22, 2005 order by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frank Jackson (later a justice of this district’s Court of Appeal, now a private judge), payments were to be made each month by Farmers New World Life and Farmers Services Company to Brian Reed, who would retain $500 as his attorney fee in connection with the wrongful death action he brought on behalf of the murder victim’s widow and two children.
After Brian Reed’s death, the widow asked Farmers to make the checks out to her, leading to litigation between her and the plaintiffs in the wrongful death suit. Although there was no attorney-client agreement as to fees, Chang determined that Jackson must have proceeded on a quantum meruit theory.
Richardson wrote:
“[W]hile it is true that an attorney is entitled to quantum meruit in the absence of a valid written contingency fee agreement, that dispute must be squarely raised and adjudicated, and cannot be decided sub silentio by approving a default judgment in which the issue was never mentioned in any pleadings.”
She noted that the prayer in the wrongful death complaint did not seek attorney fees, such fees were not sought in the request for default, and Brian Reed did not make a motion for fees or petition for them.
Void Judgment
“The California Supreme Court has consistently held that a judgment is void to the extent that a court lacks jurisdiction,” Richardson said, adding:
“The jurisdictional error in this case was to provide relief to a nonparty (attorney Reed) regarding a matter that was never put to it (the fee award).”
She went on to say:
“Here, attorney Reed was not a party to this action, nor did he ever file any motion or petition for attorney fees—even assuming that he had a statutory basis to do so….
“In addition to lacking jurisdiction over a nonparty, the court also lacked jurisdiction over the issue of the distribution of the proceeds between plaintiffs and their lawyer.”
Laches Doesn’t Apply
Chang found that the survivors of the slain man, Victor Ransom, were barred by laches from gaining relief in light of the 13-year delay in making their claim. Richardson responded that “laches does not apply when a judgment is void.”
The clients—who did not seek a return of moneys previously deducted—are entitled to the full $2,000 payments, Richardson said.
The case is Regos v. Reed, B316267.
Alan K. Nicolette of Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette and Blythe represented Ransom’s survivors and Alexander L. Massari of Derryberry & Associates was counsel for Jackie Lynn Reed.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company