Action seeking enforcement of attorneys’ charging liens in a divorce case; Kysor Indus Corp v DM Liquidating Co

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enforce appellant-law firm’s (Szymanski) and cross-appellant-attorney’s (Nichols) respective charging liens. After a judgment of divorce was entered, defendant-ex-husband was uncooperative with orders directing him to disburse assets to plaintiff-ex-wife. As such, a receiver was appointed. Szymanksi and Nichols later sought charging liens for unpaid legal services. The trial court ultimately denied their motions. On appeal, the court rejected their argument that the trial court erred in doing so. It noted that “while the trial court’s use of the word ‘dismissed’ may have been imprecise, [it] reasonably may be understood as declining to enforce the charging liens.” The trial court “did not abuse its discretion in that regard.” While it was true that plaintiff “received a substantial amount of money following the . . . divorce judgment, this fact would weigh in favor of enforcing the charging liens, as it may be inferred that doing so would not leave her destitute.” However, plaintiff “was owed hundreds of thousands of dollars that she likely would never recover. In addition, the post-divorce proceedings had been ongoing for over 25 years, and when the trial court decided the case, the parties were arguing about services provided over a decade prior. The passage of time arguably rendered it difficult for the trial court to even provide a principled decision at this stage of the case.” The court added that, while not “the complete amounts they seek, Szymanski was paid about $100,000 in attorney fees, and Nichols was paid about $10,000 in attorney fees.” As such, “declining to enforce the charging liens would not result in the attorneys being unpaid for their legal services.” In light of these facts, “as well as the fact that this is a divorce case—which other state courts have recognized as perhaps weighing against a charging lien—we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enforce the charging liens.” Affirmed.