Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03794/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03794-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3794

___________

Employers Mutual Casualty Company; *

American Liberty Insurance Company; *

Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Hoodco, Inc.; *

*

Defendant, *

*

David J. Bening; Alfred W. Harre; *

Bernice Harre; *

*

Defendants-Appellees, *

*

Joseph P. Caulfield & Associates, Inc.; *

Blair K. Drazic; *

*

Defendants, *

*

Arthur G. Muegler; *

*

Defendant-Appellant, *

*

Thomas G. Berndsen, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Intervenor Defendant- * District of Missouri.

Appellee, *

____________________ * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellate Case: 03-3794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856576 
-2-

Hoodco, Inc.; Hoodco Building and *

Supply, Inc.; Ernest Hood, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

American Liberty Insurance Company; *

Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company; *

Employers Mutual Casualty Company; *

*

Defendants, *

*

David J. Bening; Alfred W. Harre; *

Bernice Harre, *

*

Movants Below-Appellees. *

____________________ *

*

Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company; *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Hoodco, Inc.; *

*

Defendant, *

*

David J. Bening; Alfred W. Harre; *

Bernice Harre, *

*

Movants Below-Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2005

Filed: January 19, 2005

Appellate Case: 03-3794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856576 
*

The Honorable David C. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-3-

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1996, David J. Bening, and Alfred W. and Bernice Harre obtained judgments

against attorney Arthur G. Muegler. Bening and the Harres were represented by

Thomas G. Berndsen, who filed an attorney’s lien for his contingency fee. Muegler

filed for bankruptcy in Arizona and listed the judgments, but the bankruptcy court

found the judgments were nondischargeable. In 2002 Muegler represented Hoodco,

Inc. in a property insurance lawsuit involving Employers Mutual Casualty Insurance

Company. The parties settled for $725,000. Employers Mutual deposited the money

in the court’s registry and filed an interpleader action. Muegler, his judgment

creditors Bening and the Harres, and Berndsen were listed as interested persons.

Muegler claimed his attorney’s fee was exempt from garnishment. Bening, the

Harres, and Berndsen asserted they were entitled to Huegler’s fee as his judgment

creditors. The district court*

 denied Muegler’s claimed garnishment exemption as

meritless and concluded that because the judgments against him were greater than

Muelger’s share, Muegler was not entitled to any part of the distribution. 

Muegler appeals asserting the district court committed error in denying his

claimed garnishment exemption. Muegler made the same arguments before the

district court in several earlier cases, however, and his claims were rejected. We

affirmed. Thus, the district court correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel

and denied Muegler’s claimed exemptions. Further, as the district court explained,

Muegler’s attorney’s fees are not exempt from garnishment under either 15 U.S.C.

§ 1673(a) or Mo. Rev. Stat. § 525.030.2 because he is an independent contractor. The

Appellate Case: 03-3794 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856576 
-4-

district court’s decision did not violate any of Muegler’s constitutional rights. Last,

the district court properly denied Muegler’s affirmative defense because the district

court knew the bankruptcy court determined Muegler’s debt is not dischargeable. 

Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we

conclude the district court properly decided this case. Because there is no need for

additional explanation, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s memorandum and

orders. See 8th Cir. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3794 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856576