Ryan v. Ford

• Decision Date: 22 February 2000
• Citation: 16 S.W.3d 644
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . Beverly Sue Ryan, Clay County Public Administrator, as Conservator for the Estate of Brandon Shane Reece, a Minor, Appellant, v. Hamp Ford, et al., Respondent. WD56937 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

16 S.W.3d 644 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Beverly Sue Ryan, Clay County Public Administrator, as Conservator for the Estate of Brandon Shane Reece, a Minor, Appellant, v. Hamp Ford, et al., Respondent.

WD56937

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Handdown Date: 02/22/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Saline County, Hon. Robert Hereford Ravenhill

Counsel for Appellant: John Richard Shank, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent: James P. Barton, Jr.

Opinion Summary:

The Estate of Brandon Shane Reece (Brandon), sued Brandon's former attorneys at the law firm of Knight, Ford, Wright, Atwill, Parshall & Baker (the law firm) alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and a right to a constructive trust based on his former attorneys' alleged negligent representation in his prior personal injury and wrongful death suits against the driver of a car which hit the car in which he was riding, seriously injuring him and killing his mother. The law firm moved to dismiss the instant suit, alleging that because the probate and circuit court's approval of a settlement of Brandon's personal injury and tort actions included a finding that the settlement was reasonable, the issue whether they had been negligent in their representation of Brandon in those suits had already been litigated and the doctrines of collateral estoppel and equitable estoppel barred its relitigation here.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Division I holds:

Even though the settlement and its allocation were deemed reasonable, that determination did not resolve the issue whether Brandon's attorneys adequately represented him in those suits, or whether they had a conflict of interest which worked to his prejudice. In determining the reasonableness of the settlement, these courts proceeded on the assumption that the law firm adequately represented Brandon's interests, and they approved the settlement in light of the facts then revealed in discovery. However, Brandon's estate is alleging that his attorneys made misrepresentations to him and the conservator-ad-litem, that they had a conflict of interest and were not acting in his best interest but instead in the best interest of his father, and with a view to maximizing their own fees, and that, as a result, the settlement, while reasonable in light of the facts then available to the court, was less than it would have been had Brandon been properly represented and in the absence of the alleged fraud and malpractice. Indeed, Brandon is not attacking the judgment and settlement as being too low, nor is he seeking to have the same set aside. Rather, Brandon's estate only claims that he was inadequately counseled in reaching the settlement. Accordingly, since this issue is not identical to any of those in the settlement proceedings, collateral estoppel does not apply.

Under the circumstances, by accepting the benefits of the settlement, Brandon is not equitably estopped from making the assertions raised in this suit. First, Brandon is contesting not the settlement itself, but whether his share of it should be greater because of the allegedly inadequate counsel provided by the law firm. Also, the law firm has failed to allege that Brandon made a representation upon which they relied on to their detriment based on facts known to Brandon and not to them and made with the intent that it would be acted upon. Therefore, because the elements of equitable estoppel have not been sufficiently asserted or proved, the doctrine is inapplicable.

Whether or not Brandon can in fact prove any of his claims must still be determined. This court decides only the legal issues of collateral estoppel and equitable estoppel.

Opinion Author: Laura Denvir Stith, Presiding Judge

Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Spinden and Howard, JJ., concur.

Opinion:

Plaintiff-Appellant, the Estate of Brandon Shane Reece ("Brandon"), sued Brandon's former attorneys at the law firm of Knight, Ford, Wright, Atwill, Parshall & Baker ("Defendants" or "the law firm"). Brandon alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and a right to a constructive trust based on his former attorneys' alleged negligent representation of Brandon in his prior personal injury and wrongful death suits against the driver of a car which hit the car in which he was riding, seriously injuring him and killing his mother. The law firm moved to dismiss the instant suit, alleging that because the probate and circuit court's approval of a settlement of Brandon's personal injury and tort actions included a finding that the settlement was reasonable, the issue whether they had been negligent in their representation of Brandon in those suits had already been litigated and the doctrines of collateral estoppel and equitable estoppel barred its relitigation here. Brandon appeals.

Because we find that the prior determination that the settlement was reasonable did not determine the issue whether Brandon's attorneys adequately represented him in those suits, or whether they had a conflict of interest in that representation which worked to his prejudice, and because we find the elements of equitable estoppel have not been pleaded, we find the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 27, 1980, the car in which Brandon Shane Reece and his parents, John Robert Reece and Julia Reece, were riding was involved in a serious car accident with a car driven by Gerald Pendleton. The accident caused Brandon severe and permanent injuries and caused the death of his mother, Julia. In the years that followed, a number of lawsuits were filed, dismissed, and later re-filed on behalf of Brandon, seeking to establish liability and recover damages from Mr. Pendleton, from Brandon's father John Robert Reece, and from various medical care providers, based on claims of wrongful death or personal injury.

Although the exact sequence and timing of the filing and dismissal of these suits is not fully clear from the record, the record does show that Mr. Reece and his son, Brandon (by Mr. Reece as conservator), filed a wrongful death action in Cooper County Circuit Court, No. CV184-129CC, seeking $500,000.00 in damages against Mr. Pendleton. On January 8, 1988, Defendant law firm made an entry of appearance for both plaintiffs.

At the time the wrongful death suit was pending, a personal injury suit, No. CV182-86CC, had also been filed by Brandon in Cooper County, Missouri against his father (John Robert Reece), Mr. Pendleton, and various health care providers. Initially, Mr. Reece did not act as conservator for Brandon in that personal injury suit, as he was a defendant in the suit. Sometime prior to May 20, 1988, however, Mr. Reece and Mr. Pendleton were dismissed as defendants from that personal injury suit. As a result, on May 20, 1988, Mr. Reece was re-appointed conservator for Brandon by the Probate Division of the Cooper County Circuit Court. By October of 1988, Brandon's claims for personal injury against the remaining medical care providers were disposed of by a jury verdict for all but one of the defendants, Bradley Lindsay, who agreed to a settlement.

On December 2, 1988, Mr. Reece also engaged the Knight-Ford law firm to represent him as an individual in connection with claims for personal injuries and the death of his wife Julia Reece. Mr. Reece had originally believed that Mr. Pendleton held liability coverage of only $500,000 per accident through his primary insurer, State Farm Insurance. However, prior to a June 10, 1991, meeting between Mr. Reece and Mr. Ford, the law firm determined that Mr. Pendleton had possible additional liability coverage of $5,000,000.00 with Granite State Insurance Company and Highlands Insurance Company. As a result of this finding, it was concluded at the June 10 meeting that it was necessary to file another action for the personal injuries of Brandon, this time against Mr. Pendleton only, claiming damages in addition to the $500,000.00 in damages originally claimed in the Cooper County wrongful death suit, No. CV184-129CC, as the secondary insurers would not pay until State Farm reached its policy limits. In his capacity as guardian and conservator of Brandon, Mr. Reece therefore hired the law firm on a contingent fee basis to represent Brandon in his claims for personal injuries against Mr. Pendleton. The law firm then filed the current personal injury suit on June 26, 1991, in Cooper County Circuit Court, No. CV191-89CC, claiming personal injury damages of $10,000,000.00.

So far as the record before us shows, none of the insurers provided a defense for Mr. Pendleton (the insured) in this personal injury action, or in the pending wrongful death suit. The Probate Division of the Cooper County Circuit Court appointed Mr. Abele conservator-ad-litem for Brandon on March 12, 1993 in order to consider a proposed contract that would limit recovery on the personal injury and wrongful claims to the insurance proceeds pursuant to Section 537.065 RSMo 1986, and also in connection with the pending personal injury and wrongful death cases. On March 16, 1993, Mr. Reece, on his own behalf and as conservator for Brandon, and conservator-ad-litem Douglas Abele agreed to enter into the above contract by which the parties agreed to decrease the damages requested in the personal injury suit from $10,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00, increase the damages requested in the wrongful death suit from $500,000.00 to $5,000,000.00, and allocate the wrongful death damages 90% to Mr. Reed and 10% to Brandon.

On March 17, 1993, by request of the parties, the Cooper County Circuit Court transferred both the personal injury claim and the wrongful death claim to the Saline County Circuit Court. Two days later, Mr. Reece...