Motion for interpleader; Standing to challenge an attorney charging lien; Souden v Souden; Mt. Pleasant Abstract & Title, Inc. (MPAT)

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed the trial court’s final order granting in part and denying in part defendant-MPAT’s motion for interpleader. It held that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims against defendant-Hickey-Niezgoda as to the attorney charging lien The case arose out of a previously-litigated land contract dispute. Plaintiff raised “no fewer than 11 issues on appeal,” but in the court’s view, the only relevant question in the case was whether plaintiff had standing to assert claims against Hickey-Niezgoda as to the attorney charging lien. The court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the lien. Plaintiff argued that “Souden stands broadly for the proposition that third parties have standing to challenge litigants who seek equitable remedies and, more specifically, that third parties may challenge an attorney charging lien. In our view, it stands for neither proposition.” The court rejected “plaintiff’s characterization that Souden allows a third party, such as himself, to challenge the propriety of an attorney charging lien, and we are not aware of any other authority supporting plaintiff’s position.” Plaintiff failed to perfect service of the complaint on defendant-Monroe, “the only party with whom he had a potentially meritorious claim. Plaintiff’s attempts to circumvent this error by asserting claims against Hickey-Niezgoda, with whom he has no relationship, are unfounded.” There was “no actual controversy between plaintiff and Hickey-Niezgoda, and plaintiff lacks standing to challenge her lien against the escrow funds. Thus, the trial court did not err when it granted Hickey-Niezgoda’s motion to set aside the default and motion for summary disposition.”