 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Snow5/18/1999
nt creditor through an execution sale, does public policy preclude the very law firm against whom the claim is asserted from purchasing the claim?" Tanasse, 929 P.2d at 352. These questions of law are reviewed under a correction of error standard. State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994). We consider the issues before us as follows.
I. ASSIGNABILITY OF LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
We affirm the court of appeals' determination that there is no need to decide whether a legal malpractice claim is assignable under Utah law in order to resolve this particular dispute. See Tanasse, 929 P.2d at 353. Tanasse never attempted to voluntarily assign his legal malpractice claim, and Snow Nuffer has not tried to assign the claim since acquiring it through execution. Acquisition of a legal malpractice claim through purchase at a sheriff's auction in order to satisfy a default judgment is not the same as acquiring it through a voluntary assignment. Thus, the issue of the claim's assignability was not before the court of appeals and is not before us.
II. INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
We also affirm the court of appeals' holding that a legal malpractice claim can be reached through an involuntary transfer such as execution. Tanasse, 929 P.2d at 354. Rule 69 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states that a sheriff shall "execute the writ [of execution] against the non-exempt property of the judgment debtor by levying on a sufficient amount of property, if there is sufficient property; collecting or selling the choses in action and selling the other property in the manner set forth herein." Utah R. Civ. P. 69(f). A "chose in action" has been defined as "a claim or debt upon which a recovery may be made in a lawsuit. It is not a present possession, but merely a right to sue; it becomes a `possessory thing' only upon successful completion of a lawsuit." Barron's Law Dictionary 71 (3d ed. 1991). Accordingly, we hold that a legal malpractice claim, like any other chose in action, may ordinarily be acquired by a creditor through attachment and execution.
While this is a question of first impression in Utah, we note that a number of states permit a "judgment creditor to execute upon a judgment debtor's cause of action against its insurer." Denham v. Farmers Ins. Co., 213 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1070, 262 Cal. Rptr. 146, 151 (Ct. App. 1989) (referencing Bergen v. F/V St. Patrick, 686 F. Supp. 786 (D. Alaska 1988); Whitehead v. Van Leuven, 347 F. Supp. 505 (D. Idaho 1972); Steffens v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 181 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1970)). Medical malpractice claims, for example, have been held to be subject to attachment and execution by creditors. Woody's Olympia Lumber, Inc. v. Roney, 513 P.2d 849, 850-54 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). The Denham court interpreting Nevada law, held that, absent direct language to the contrary, all causes of action are subject to execution. See Denham, 262 Cal. Rptr. at 152. Like Nevada, Utah's rules of civil procedure contain no direct language exempting causes of action from execution. See Utah R. Civ. P. 69. Rather, as the court of appeals noted, the term "chose in action" is used "in the Utah version of Rule 69 without restriction of any sort." Tanasse, 929 P.2d at 354. Thus, we view rule 69 to encompass all choses in action, including causes of action for legal malpractice.
Ikuno v. Yip, 912 F.2d 306, 313-14 (9th Cir. 1990), provides further support for our holding that legal malpractice claims may be reached through an execution sale. In Ikuno, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Washington state law to find that a legal negligence claim "was property subject to execution." Id. at 314. The Ninth
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|