Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation
Decision Date | 15 June 1998 |
Docket Number | 961578 |
Citation | 524 U.S. 156,141 L.Ed.2d 174,118 S.Ct. 1925 |
Parties | Thomas R. PHILLIPS, et al., Petitioners, v. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Under Texas' Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) program, an attorney who receives client funds must place them in a separate, interest-bearing, federally authorized "NOW'' account upon determining that the funds "could not reasonably be expected to earn interest for the client or [that] the interest which might be earned . . . is not likely to be sufficient to offset the cost of establishing and maintaining the account, service charges, accounting costs and tax reporting costs which would be incurred in attempting to obtain the interest.'' IOLTA interest income is paid to the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (TEAJF), which finances legal services for low-income persons. The Internal Revenue Service does not attribute such interest to the individual clients for federal income tax purposes if they have no control over the decision whether to place the funds in the IOLTA account and do not designate who will receive the interest. Respondents-a public-interest organization having Texas members opposed to the IOLTA program, a Texas attorney who regularly deposits client funds in an IOLTA account, and a Texas businessman whose attorney retainer has been so deposited-filed this suit against TEAJF and the other petitioners, alleging, inter alia, that the Texas IOLTA program violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that "private property'' shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, reasoning that respondents had no property interest in the IOLTA interest proceeds. The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that such interest belongs to the owner of the principal.
Held:
1.Interest earned on client funds held in IOLTA accounts is the "private property'' of the client for Takings Clause purposes. The existence of a property interest is determined by reference to existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548. All agree that under Texas law the principal held in IOLTA accounts is the client's "private property.'' Moreover, the general rule that "interest follows principal'' applies in Texas. See Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162, 101 S.Ct. 446, 451, 66 L.Ed.2d 358. Petitioners' contention that Webb's does not control because examples such as income-only trusts and marital community property rules demonstrate that Texas does not, in fact, adhere to the general rule is rejected. These examples miss the point of Webb's. Their exception by Texas from the "interest follows principal'' rule has a firm basis in traditional property law principles, whereas petitioners point to no such principles allowing the owner of funds temporarily deposited in an attorney trust account to be deprived of the interest the funds generates. Petitioners' further contention that "interest follows principal'' in Texas only if it is allowed by law does not assist their cause. They do not argue that Texas law prohibits the payment of interest on IOLTA funds, but, rather, that interest actually "earned'' by such funds is not the private property of the principal's owner. Regardless of whether that owner has a constitutionally cognizable interest in the anticipated generation of interest by his funds, any interest that does accrue attaches as a property right incident to the ownership of the underlying principal. Petitioners' final argument that the money transferred to the TEAJF is not "private property'' because IOLTA funds cannot reasonably be expected to generate interest income on their own is plainly incorrect under Texas' requirement that client funds be deposited in an IOLTA account "if the interest which might be earned'' is insufficient to offset account costs and service charges that would be incurred in obtaining it. It is not that the funds to be placed in IOLTA accounts cannot generate interest, but that they cannot generate net interest. This Court has indicated that a physical item does not lack "property'' status simply because it does not have a positive economic or market value. See, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 437, n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3175-3176, 3177, n. 15, 73 L.Ed.2d 868. While IOLTA interest income may have no economically realizable value to its owner, its possession, control, and disposition are nonetheless valuable rights. See Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 715, 107 S.Ct. 2076, 2083-2084, 95 L.Ed.2d 668. The United States' argument that "private property'' is not implicated here because IOLTA interest income is "government-created value'' is factually erroneous: The State does nothing to create value; the value is created by respondents' funds. The Federal Government, through its banking and taxation regulations, imposes costs on this value if private citizens attempt to exercise control over it. Waiver of these costs if the property is remitted to the State hardly constitutes "government-created value.'' In any event, this Court rejected a similar argument in Webb's, supra, at 162, 101 S.Ct., at 451. Pp. ____-____.
2.This Court leaves for consideration on remand the question whether IOLTA funds have been "taken'' by the State, as well as the amount of "just compensation,'' if any, due respondents. P. ____.
94 F.3d 996, affirmed.
Darrell E. Jordan, Dallas, TX, for petitioners.
Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, DC, for United States as amicus curiae by special leave of the Court.
Richard A. Samp, Arlington, VA, for respondents.
Texas, like 48 other States and the District of Columbia, 1 has adopted an Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) program. Under these programs, certain client funds held by an attorney in connection with his practice of law are deposited in bank accounts. The interest income generated by the funds is paid to foundations that finance legal services for low-income individuals. The question presented by this case is whether interest earned on client funds held in IOLTA accounts is "private property'' of either the client or the attorney for purposes of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that it is the property of the client.
In the course of their legal practice, attorneys are frequently required to hold client funds for various lengths of time. Before 1980, an attorney generally held such funds in non-interest bearing, federally insured checking accounts in which all client trust funds of an individual attorney were pooled. These accounts provided administrative convenience and ready access to funds. They were non-interest bearing because federal law prohibited federally insured banks and savings and loans from paying interest on checking accounts. See 12 U.S.C. §§371a, 1464(b)(1)(B), 1828(g). When a lawyer held a large sum in trust for his client, such funds were generally placed in an interest-bearing savings account because the interest generated outweighed the inconvenience caused by the lack of check-writing capabilities.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Temple-Inland, Inc. v. Cook, Civ. No. 14-654-GMS
...("It is beyond dispute that taxes and user fees are not takings." (internal punctuation omitted)); Phillips v. Wash. Legal Found. , 524 U.S. 156, 160, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998) (holding that interest income generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts is private property of the ow......
-
Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
...the Takings Clause. While compensable property interests are often created by state law, see Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation , 524 U.S. 156, 164, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998), "whether a particular state-created interest rises to the level of a ‘legitimate claim of entitle......
-
New England Estates v. Town of Branford, No. 18132.
...independent source such as state law." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 163-64, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) ("Pr......
-
Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Case No. 20-CV-0889 (PJS/BRT)
...to existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law." Phillips v. Wash. Legal Found. , 524 U.S. 156, 164, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Tyler argues that she owns the surplus equity by virtue of the fact......
-
Supreme Court Holds Retaining Tax Sale Excess Is A Taking
...property. For that, the Court draws on “existing rules or understandings” about property rights. Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (1998). State law is one important source. But state law cannot be the only source. Otherwise, a State could “sidestep the Takings Cla......
-
When the court has a party, how many "friends" show up? A note on the statistical distribution of amicus brief filings.
...U.S. 726 134 377 523 U.S. 511 52 260 523 U.S. 224 332 2829 523 U.S. 155 30 60 523 U.S. 185 61 257 522 U.S. 87 34 174 524 U.S. 399 257 373 524 U.S. 156 221 302 524 U.S. 38 28 159 523 U.S. 740 51 215 523 U.S. 614 118 2016 523 U.S. 637 78 382 523 U.S. 272 120 223 523 U.S. 65 57 174 522 U.S. 26......
-
The Cathedral Engulfed: Sea-Level Rise, Property Rights, and Time
...no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation.”). 144. See Phillips v. Wash. Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 160 (1998) (holding that interest payments upon a deposit must be assigned to the owner of the principal). 102 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. ......
-
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: the categorical and other "exceptions' to liability for Fifth Amendment takings of private property far outweigh the "rule".
...protectable property interest, but affirming holding of no taking because of lack of reasonable investment-backed expectations). (144) 524 U.S. 156 (145) Id. at 172. (146) For example, in National Mining Association v. Babbitt, 172 F.3d 906 (D.C. Cir. 1999), Judge Silberman quoted the plura......
-
Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
...(24) Questions about the constitutionality of this practice were raised but not answered in Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) (holding that, under Texas law, interest on lawyers' client trust accounts--"IOLTA"--is the "property" of clients for purposes of the Taki......