Roderick v. Ricks
Decision Date | 13 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 20000452.,20000452. |
Citation | 2002 UT 84,54 P.3d 1119 |
Parties | Suzanne RODERICK, Plaintiff, v. Nathan RICKS; B. Ray Zoll; Douglas T. Castleton; Abaco Publishing, a Utah limited liability company; Abaco Installers, a Utah limited liability company; and John Does I-X, Defendants. Douglas T. Castleton, Cross-claim Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B. Ray Zoll, Cross-claim Defendant and Appellee. |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John T. Anderson, Salt Lake City, attorney for plaintiff.
Steven C. Tycksen, Cory D. Memmott, attorneys for defendant.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 Douglas Castleton sued attorney B. Ray Zoll for legal malpractice, claiming that Zoll breached fiduciary duties he owed to Castleton when he represented a third party against Castleton. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Zoll, concluding that Zoll neither breached any fiduciary duties nor proximately caused the damages that Castleton claimed. Castleton appeals. Because the trial court correctly concluded that Zoll's representation of the third party did not breach any fiduciary duties Zoll owed to Castleton, we affirm.
¶ 2 Unless otherwise stated, the following background information is either undisputed or taken from the trial court's detailed findings of fact. "On appeal from a bench trial, `[f]indings of fact . . . shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.'" Tanner v. Carter, 2001 UT 18, ¶ 2, 20 P.3d 332 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a)). "We relate the facts accordingly, granting due deference to the trial court's resolution of factual disputes." Id.
¶ 3 B. Ray Zoll served as Douglas Castleton's attorney in three legal matters. According to Zoll, he and Castleton did not have a written agreement defining the scope of the representation in any of the three matters.
¶ 4 Two of the matters in which Zoll represented Castleton concerned a bankruptcy action and a debt collection case. In early 1994, Zoll appeared on Castleton's behalf in bankruptcy court for the limited purpose of arguing a motion for relief from a bankruptcy court order. After this hearing, the bankruptcy court entered a final order on May 24, 1995, and no appeal was taken. In January 1995, Zoll filed an answer for Castleton in a debt collection case. This case was dismissed on June 13, 1995. The parties do not dispute that Zoll's representation of Castleton in the bankruptcy and collection matters ended before Zoll began representing Ricks against Castleton.
¶ 5 Zoll also represented Castleton in a post-divorce action. This representation began in February 1994, when Zoll defended Castleton at a contempt proceeding arising from Castleton's failure to stay current in his child support obligations. Then, in October 1994, Zoll represented Castleton at a hearing on Castleton's ex-wife's petition to modify their divorce decree. Afterwards, Castleton's ex-wife submitted a proposed order modifying the original divorce decree. Zoll filed an objection to this proposed order in February 1995. The divorce court scheduled a hearing on Zoll's objection for May 1, 1995, but later struck this hearing date. Zoll testified at trial that he vaguely recalled that he and Castleton had an understanding that the objection would not be pursued. Although Zoll did not file a notice of withdrawal as counsel of record in the post-divorce matter until November 1996, Castleton admitted at trial that Zoll did not perform further legal work for him after Zoll filed the objection to the proposed order.
¶ 6 When Castleton became delinquent on his bill for Zoll's legal services, Zoll sent Castleton a letter dated August 2, 1995, which stated as follows:
I will accept a 15% reduction in the amount of your bill if it is paid in cash within two (2) weeks from the date hereof. In any event, if you do not make arrangements with our office to begin payment on your bill within (2) weeks from the date hereto, I will have no other option but to withdraw as your counsel in the matters for which this law firm has represented you and to pursue collection of this amount from you.
¶ 7 At trial, the parties disputed whether Castleton complied with the conditions stated in this delinquency letter. The first dispute concerned a payment of $100 Castleton made to Zoll's firm after receiving the letter. Castleton's check for $100 was dated September 19, 1995, over four weeks after the date Zoll had indicated he would withdraw as Castleton's attorney if Castleton had failed to make arrangements to begin paying his bill. Zoll maintained that because Castleton did not tender the $100 until after the attorney-client relationship terminated, the $100 was simply a payment on Castleton's legal bill.
¶ 8 Zoll and his law firm's secretary also testified that Castleton never contacted the firm to make arrangements to pay his bill as called for in the letter. Contradicting this testimony, Castleton testified that after receiving the letter, he met with Zoll and Zoll agreed to continue to represent him; Zoll denied that this meeting occurred. The trial court, which specifically noted that Castleton was not a credible witness, found that no such meeting took place.
¶ 9 Castleton further testified that Zoll agreed to accept as either partial or complete payment of his legal bill various printing services, and that, in accordance with this agreement, he prepared handouts, printouts, and other materials, then delivered them to a third party for delivery to Zoll. The third party testified that he neither knew of any such arrangement nor received any materials from Castleton on Zoll's behalf. Castleton also testified that in March 1996, Zoll sent a runner to Castleton's residence to pick up some materials related to a multi-level marketing organization.1 Castleton claimed that Zoll had agreed to reduce Castleton's legal bill in exchange for these materials. Zoll denied having made this agreement. The trial court found that Zoll had not agreed to accept printing services from Castleton in payment of his legal bill, and that Castleton had not delivered any materials to the third party for delivery to Zoll.
¶ 10 In conjunction with Castleton's testimony regarding the runner, Castleton's attorney introduced into evidence a billing statement that Castleton had received from Zoll's firm.2 This billing statement, which was dated April 1, 1996, itemized charges as follows:
Hrs/Rate Amount Professional services 03/21/96 Runner fees to pick up books 1.00 10.00 10.00/hr ________ ________ For professional services 1.00 $ 10.00 Additional charges 03/21/96 Runner fees 7.00 ________ Total costs $ 7.00 Interest on overdue balance $ 71.11 _________ Total amount of this bill $ 88.11 Previous balance $4,651.67
¶ 11 Castleton testified that he interpreted the charges in the billing statement as being for services performed by Zoll's firm, not by Zoll himself.
¶ 12 In April 1996, Zoll telephoned Castleton and asked him to come to Zoll's office to meet with Zoll and Nathan Ricks, a long-time client of Zoll's, about Castleton's employment relationship with Ricks's company.3 Zoll did not tell Castleton in advance that he and Ricks intended to confront Castleton with an allegation that he had stolen money from Ricks. The meeting between Zoll, Castleton, and Ricks occurred April 8, 1996.
¶ 13 Zoll tape-recorded a portion of this meeting. A transcript, which the trial court certified as accurate, shows Zoll accusing Castleton of submitting false invoices to Ricks, and Castleton admitting to having done so:4
¶ 14 Later during this meeting, Castleton and Ricks agreed that Ricks would follow Castleton to his residence that evening to obtain whatever computer hardware and software...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Gallivan v. Walker, 20020545.
-
Bistline v. Parker
...the client clearly understands, or reasonably should understand, that the relationship is no longer to be depended on." Roderick v. Ricks , 54 P.3d 1119, 1127 (Utah 2002), citing In re Weiner , 120 Ariz. 349, 586 P.2d 194, 197 (1978). Under Utah law, "the proper determination of whether an ......
-
Handy v. U.S. Bank, National Association
...a plaintiff has proved his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence is a legal determination reviewed for correctness. See Roderick v. Ricks, 2002 UT 84, ¶¶ 27-28, 54 P.3d 1119 (discussing that a trial court's legal conclusions in a bench trial are reviewed under "a correction-of-erro......
-
Kraatz v. Heritage Imports
...give "due regard ... to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a). Roderick v. Ricks, 2002 UT 84,¶ 27, 54 P.3d 1119 (footnote ¶ 8 The evidence adduced at trial, upon which the trial court based its finding of $3.1 million as the val......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...carefully selected facts and excerptsof trial testimony supporting their own position, omitting negative facts. See Roderick v. Ricks, 2002 UT 84, ¶46, 54 P.3d 1119;Guenon v. Midvale City, 2010 UT App 51, ¶6, 230 P.3d 1032;Hi-Country Estates Home owners Ass'n. v. Bagley and Co., 2008 UT App......
-
Article Hold Me Close: Lawyers Beware, the Closely Held Company
...for even the most careful practitioner who clearly defines who the client is and the scope of such representation. See Roderick v. Ricks, 2002 UT 84, ¶ 40, 54 P.3d 1119 (“An attorney-client relationship exists when a person reasonably believes that the attorney represents the person’s legal......
-
Focus on Ethics & Civility
...to exist, the “client” must actually and reasonably believe that the attorney represents the client’s interests. Roderick v. Ricks, 2002 UT 84, ¶ 41, 54 P.3d 1119. Courts will examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the alleged representation. Norman v. Arnold, 2002 UT 81, ¶ 1......