Oliver v. Groedel
| Decision Date | 26 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22 MA 0005 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 275 |
| Parties | CHRISTINE L. OLIVER FKA CHRISTINE L. LUCARELL, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CARYN GROEDEL, ESQ., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County Ohio Case No. 2019 CV 02138
Atty Randy J. Hart, for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee and
Atty Caryn M. Groedel and Atty. Matthew S. Grimsky, Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA, for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants and
Atty A. Scott Fromson, for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
BEFORE: Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges and Frederick D. Nelson, Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment (Retired).
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Christine L. Oliver, formerly known as Christine L. Lucarell (appellant), appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas awarding attorney fees in the amount of $195,030.60 to Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Caryn Groedel, Esquire, and Caryn Groedel and Associates Co., LPA (Groedel). Groedel filed a cross-appeal. A. Scott Fromson, Esquire and A. Scott Fromson, Attorney at Law, Inc. (Fromson) cross-appealed as well.
{¶2} On October 22, 2019, appellant filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas against Fromson and Groedel. She averred that in 2009, she contacted Fromson for legal representation concerning her employment with Nationwide Insurance. Appellant stated that Fromson subsequently contacted Groedel for co-counsel representation and appellant agreed to such representation in January 2010.
{¶3} Appellant further averred that Fromson undertook significant efforts to research the facts and legal basis for her complaint against Nationwide, which included an invasion of privacy claim. Fromson filed appellant's complaint against Nationwide in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. The complaint alleged the following causes of action against Nationwide concerning its Agency Executive (AE) Program: (1) breach of contract as to the AE Performance Agreement; (2) breach of contract regarding a Memorandum of Understanding; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) breach of contract as to the Independent Contractor Agent's Agreement; and (5) invasion of privacy and misappropriation of appellant's name.
{¶4} In July 2010, appellant discharged Fromson and continued with Groedel's legal representation. Appellant alleges that prior to this discharge, Fromson and Groedel were working under a compensation agreement entitling them to 40% of any gross recovery of damages against Nationwide. Exhibit K of Groedel's trial exhibits contains the contingency fee agreement that appellant signed with Groedel on July 12, 2010.
{¶5} In the Nationwide case, the trial court granted Nationwide's motion for a directed verdict on appellant's fraudulent misrepresentation claim. However, the jury found in appellant's favor on all other claims and awarded her over $42 million. The trial court applied statutory caps on damages and reduced the judgment to $14,167,010.00. The court also awarded $187,546.50 in attorney fees and $21,557.64 in costs.
{¶6} Both Nationwide and appellant appealed to this Court in 2013, with Groedel also representing appellant on appeal. On December 17, 2015, we issued a decision affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court. Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 7th Dist. Mahoning Nos. 13 MA 74, 13 MA 133, 2015-Ohio-5286. We reversed the trial court's directed verdict on appellant's fraud claim. Id. We further found that while the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the clear and convincing burden of proof for duress on the breach of contract claims, this error was harmless.
{¶7} We affirmed the trial court's judgment on appellant's breach of contract claims, the award of attorney fees, and prejudgment interest, as well as the $10.00 in nominal damages and $100,000.00 in emotional distress damages on the invasion of privacy claim. Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., supra. We held that appellant's total award was $2,375,708.28, plus attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The award included $100,010.00 in actual damages and $200,020.00 in punitive damages on the invasion of privacy claim. Id. at ¶ 190. We reduced the jury's punitive damages award on the invasion of privacy claim to the statutory cap of twice the compensatory damages, or $200,020.00.
{¶8} After this appeal, appellant discharged Groedel. She then rehired Fromson, and hired her current counsel and others to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court accepted the appeal for review.
{¶9} On January 4, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part our decision. The Court noted that "Nationwide did not appeal the judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, its counterclaim on the note, or the award of attorney's fees and costs, and Lucarell did not appeal the dismissal of her constructive discharge and retaliation claims." Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453, 2018-Ohio-15, 97 N.E.3d 458, ¶ 69. The Court therefore made no ruling on those claims. The Court ultimately remanded the case to us on appellant's breach of contract claims to determine whether to allow a new trial on those claims.
{¶10} After the mandate with remand instructions, Groedel filed a motion with our Court to reopen the Nationwide case. She asserted that we should reopen the appeal so that the attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and costs could be resolved and so that she could petition for additional attorney fees from April 9, 2013 through the date that Nationwide paid the attorney fees it stipulated to pay Groedel, which was the $187,546.50 in attorney fees and $21,557.64 in costs.
{¶11} On March 5, 2019, we overruled the motion to reopen the appeal. Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 7th Dist. Mahoning Nos. 13 MA 74, 13 MA 133. We held that Groedel withdrew as counsel on March 2, 2016 and she therefore had no standing to file and litigate the motion to reopen since she was neither a party nor counsel for a party. Id. We further found that even if Groedel had standing, the motion to reopen was moot because the Ohio Supreme Court had already remanded the case to us for further proceedings. Id.
{¶12} While her case was pending with us on remand, appellant's current counsel, and Attorney Patricia A. Morris and Fromson, secured a settlement for her with Nationwide. The settlement details are under seal.
{¶13} On October 22, 2019, appellant filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court as to her obligations to pay attorney fees to Fromson and Groedel from the Nationwide case. Fromson and Groedel answered appellant's complaint and Groedel filed a counterclaim for attorney fees owed.
{¶14} Appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that Groedel was not entitled to any attorney fees since we overruled her motion to reopen the appeal. Appellant alternatively asserted that the trial court should find as a matter of law that Groedel was entitled to attorney fees only as to the successful claims before the Ohio Supreme Court.
{¶15} Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Magistrate Welsh held a hearing on the motion and overruled the motion. He found that appellant misconstrued our decision overruling Groedel's motion to reopen the appeal. He found our holding to mean that Groedel could not pursue her fee claim in the Nationwide case because she was not a party or counsel in that case and she therefore lacked standing to collect attorney fees from Nationwide. Magistrate Welsh held that Groedel did have standing in the instant case because she was a party and had been former counsel for appellant.
{¶16} Magistrate Welsh also noted that appellant ultimately settled all of her claims with Nationwide, and even though some of the aspects of the underlying case were never appealed, there were causes of action remaining that had not been determined when the settlement occurred. Magistrate Welsh reasoned that determining the extent, if any, that the remaining causes of action had on settlement of the Nationwide case was an issue for a trier of fact to determine.
{¶17} Magistrate Welsh subsequently held a bench trial on April 21, 2021, with appellant, Fromson, Attorney Matthew Ries, Groedel, and Attorney Randy Hart testifying. The parties thereafter submitted post-trial briefs.
{¶18} Relevant parts of the trial included Groedel's testimony that her contingency agreement with appellant provided that she and her firm were entitled to "40% of the value of that which we recover on your behalf by settlement or verdict, plus costs." (Groedel Exhibit K at 1). The agreement further stated, "[i]f we are unable to complete our representation of you for any reason, then we will be paid a quantum meruit amount of money for the work we have performed…" (Groedel Exhibit K at 3).
{¶19} Fromson testified that he also had a contingent fee agreement with appellant, but he could not produce it because he left it at Groedel's office when they were working on the complaint and discovery. (Tr. at 3). He testified that he was entitled to an attorney fee from the invasion of privacy claim and from the stipulated Nationwide attorney fee, to the extent that it related to the invasion of privacy claim. (Tr. at 72-73). He also testified that he kept no billing records as to time spent on the case because he had a contingency-fee agreement with appellant. (Tr. at 159).
{¶20} Appellant testified that she retained Fromson on a contingency basis in 2009. (Tr. at 257). She stated that Fromson...
To continue reading
Request your trial