Coblentz v. Rorem6/14/2005
Attorney John Rorem appeals a judgment in favor of his client, Dora Coblentz, for the amount of a promissory note Rorem gave Coblentz as a fee refund. Rorem argues that the note was not supported by consideration because we held in an earlier opinion that he was entitled to the full amount he had paid himself without a refund. We disagree and, therefore, affirm.
FACTS
Dora Coblentz hired attorney John Rorem to sue for the wrongful death of her husband who was killed in a hunting accident. Dora and her two children, Julie and Todd, were beneficiaries in the suit. RCW 4.20.020. Dora agreed to pay Rorem one-third of any amount recovered in the action.
Rorem settled the suit for $167,500. By court order, he deposited the net settlement proceeds into an interest-bearing account pending agreement on a final distribution of proceeds and fees. Several months later, the trial court calculated Dora's recovery at $131,500, Julie and Todd's shares at $18,000 each, and Rorem's fee at $51,000. The court calculated that Julie and Todd each owed Rorem $3,000, and that Dora was responsible for the remainder of Rorem's fee. The same day, the trial court entered an order of distribution, which broke down the various amounts to be distributed from the settlement proceeds. The order designated a $131,500 gross recovery, an $80,500 net recovery for Dora and a $51,000 fee for Rorem. It also calculated Julie and Todd's recovery at $18,000 each, less $3,000 each in attorney fees to Rorem.
After the trial court's order, Rorem withdrew at least $57,376.21 as payment for his fee and expenses; he transmitted $80,742.33 to Dora. But Rorem believed that the trial judge had incorrectly calculated Dora's net recovery in the order of distribution. He determined that Dora should receive $85,544.43. So Rorem executed a promissory note in favor of Dora for $4,802.10, the difference between what he paid her and what he believed he owed her under their fee arrangement.
With the promissory note, Rorem wrote Dora:
I cannot explain what the judge did. He just did it. The interlineations were put in by Judge Tollefson. The order and the findings do not match as to your interest. The order says you are to receive $80,500 net. The findings state that your share of my fees is $45,000 and my fee is $51,000, $6,000 paid by Julie and Todd's estate. That means your share should be $85,544.43 instead of the $80,500 and I owe you $4,802.10. Because I believe I earned my fee of 1/3, I cannot at this time pay you the $4,802.10. Therefore, I have executed a six-month promissory note to you for the amount owed at 5%. The bank was paying 4.76% on the money.
Exh. 3.
Dora responded:
Your letter of January 10, 2000 states that my share of the proceeds of #98-4-01209-1 in the Wrongful Death action of Richard Coblentz is $85,544.43. Your check for $80,742.33 was received and deposited. At no time did I agree to accept a promissory note for the $4,802,10 remaining. Per our phone conversation on, or around January 14, 2000, and, again on February 3, 2003 I requested immediate payment of the $4,802.10.
Your belief that you earned a certain fee is, in my opinion, irrelevant and is not my concern. Nor is it justification to presume that a promissory note is acceptable or appropriate.
I hereby request, and respectfully demand the immediate payment of the $4,802.10 you stated you owe me in your letter of January 10, 2000.
Exh. 5.
Julie and Todd appealed the order of distribution; Rorem intervened to challenge the amount of his fee and its allocation between the beneficiaries. He claimed that the
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|