Opinion ID: 1216974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The McKnight Assignment

Text: The March 26, 1981 court order reads in part, Defendant [Richard Van Hatten] shall execute and deliver to plaintiffs [the McKnights] an assignment (up to the amount of plaintiffs' judgment) of any recovery he may obtain by virtue of his Federal Court insurance claim litigation. The actual assignment, prepared by the McKnights' attorney, reads in part, Defendant Richard Van Hatten hereby assigns to Alice E. McKnight and Charles L. McKnight his share (after all litigation costs and attorney's fees) of any recovery... . The McKnights claim that all litigation costs and attorney's fees includes only fees in the insurance case. Rice claims that this phrase also excepts from the assignment attorney's fees incurred in the criminal cases. We conclude that Rice's claim is without merit because the McKnights' attorney did not know of the criminal cases when he prepared the assignment and clearly did not intend the assignment to except fees from them. The fact that the assignment was intended to exclude only Rice's contingent fee in the civil case and not fees for the criminal cases was made plain at the September 1, 1981 hearing at which the court instructed Van Hatten to execute the document. [11] For these reasons the judgment of the superior court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. [12]