Opinion ID: 1959035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Catapane

Text: In the case of In re Estate of Catapane, 759 So.2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the decedent's survivors in a wrongful death action included his wife, who was appointed the personal representative, and a daughter, Nadine, from a prior marriage. See id. at 10. The wife hired counsel to pursue a wrongful death claim for the estate and all of the survivors, while the surviving daughter, Nadine, hired separate counsel to represent her interests in the claim. See id. The law firms each had a one-third contingency fee agreement with their clients that provided for attorney's fees in the amount of one-third of any recovery obtained for the client. See id. When the uninsured motorist insurer offered its limits of $100,000 and the liability insurer offered its limits of $30,000 to settle the claim, it became unnecessary for an action to be prosecuted further. See id. Thereafter, the trial court determined an apportionment of the recovery so that the wife would get $35,000 and Nadine would receive $95,000 of the settlement proceeds. See id. The trial court further determined that the two separate law firms involved would each receive one-third of their clients' separate recoveries, respectively, based upon their individual fee agreements. See id. The wife's attorneys appealed, claiming that as counsel for the estate, they were entitled to their full one-third contingency fee on the entire settlement paid to the estate, including the recovery for Nadine. See id. Upon review, the Fourth District agreed in part with this claim, but held that the wife's counsel's fee recovery must be adjusted to allow a share of the fee for the daughter's counsel: We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the award of attorney's fees to David & French consistent with our holding that they were entitled, as counsel for the personal representative, to be compensated out of the total recovery of $130,000. Because of their conflict of interest on damages, however, their fee which will come out of Nadine's portion of the recovery shall be reduced by an amount necessary to compensate Lytal, Reiter for representing Nadine on damages. That fee would be small compared to David & French's fee, and the total of Nadine's fees cannot exceed a fee authorized by rule 4-1.5. See id. at 11-12 (footnotes omitted). The district court sent the case back to the trial court for a hearing to determine fees based upon these instructions. We agree with the Fourth District's Catapane analysis, and conclude that the Wiggins opinion may require the non-personal representative survivors to pay a fee in excess of those allowed by rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar [1] and ignores the potential conflict of interest that is created when separate survivors hire separate counsel to prosecute a claim for the damages that each is entitled to under the statute. See § 768.22, Fla. Stat. (1999) (damages for each survivor to be stated separately). On the other hand, the Fourth District's attorneys' fees scheme as set forth in Catapane acknowledges the conflict and allocates attorneys' fees from the estate (and ultimately all parties) once, and distributes them proportionately by the amount of work that the attorneys do on (1) the lawsuit brought on behalf of the estate, and (2) the apportionment proceedings. [2] In many instances the survivors entitled to compensation in a wrongful death action may be in agreement both as to prosecuting a wrongful death claim, and in the distribution of any recovery. When this is the case, this procedure will work well, especially when all of the survivors have a commonality of interest and a single attorney can represent those interests. This may often be the case, for example, when a parent-spouse is killed and the surviving spouse and children are represented by the same attorney. However, when the survivors do not have a commonality of interest, this procedure may also sometimes produce conflict about the resolution of the claim, apportionment of damages to the survivors, and the award of attorneys' fees. Under the wrongful death act, survivors of the deceased are entitled to damages caused to each of them by the wrongful loss of the decedent. Further, regardless of whether the court action must be filed in the name of the estate, survivors are still entitled to be represented by counsel of their choice. The survivors here were represented by separate attorneys. Nichols represented the estate and three of the survivors, while Schwichtenberg represented two of the survivors. Based upon the contingent fee agreements with their attorneys, each of those survivors could reasonably contemplate the payment of a fee out of their respective recoveries. But they could hardly contemplate having to pay a double fee, due the first time when the gross settlement amount was received, and a second time when their actual portion of the recovery was determined. Ordinarily, a single attorney simply could not fairly represent, absent an express agreement, multiple survivors' competing interests. In addition, a claim could not be properly evaluated without an evaluation of its separate components, i.e., the individual claims of the surviving, and usually competing, beneficiaries. Indeed, that is what a jury would have to do if there was no settlement. In Wiggins, the Fifth District concluded that Nichols earned his contingency fee before any potential conflict arose. 786 So.2d at 1249. However, it was apparent from the outset that all of the survivors were entitled to compensation, including the two children from the previous marriage represented by Schwichtenberg, and their respective claims evaluated prior to settlement. Yet Nichols represented the surviving and competing survivors from the outset without any express agreement. While Nichols obviously acted in good faith to secure the largest possible total settlement, the potential for conflict between the competing interests of the individual beneficiaries was ever present. In this case it appears that both attorneys rendered services to the survivors. Further, while it is unclear what part attorney Schwichtenberg played in securing the overall settlement, it is apparent that she rendered valuable services to her clients in securing a greater portion of the gross settlement for their benefit. In his dissent, Judge Sawaya noted that due in large part to Schwichtenberg's advocacy, the trial court rejected Nichols' proposal for distribution and ordered that the decedent's four children receive twenty percent each, a decision which Wright unsuccessfully appealed. [3] See 786 So.2d at 1252 (Sawaya, J., dissenting). Judge Sawaya concluded: [T]hrough the representation and efforts of Schwichtenberg, her clients recovered approximately twice the amount proposed by Wright. As I have indicated, in my opinion, these facts establish that a conflict of interest developed over the allotment of the proceeds of the settlement amount. I, therefore, believe that the decisions in Perris v. Estate of Perris, 764 So.2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) and [ In re Estate of Catapane, 759 So.2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)] should control the disposition of the issue concerning the allotment of attorneys fees between Nichols and Schwichtenberg. Application of the formula adopted in Catapane would obviously allot the larger portion of the fee to Nichols, which he so rightly deserves. Equally important, this formula would allow Schwichtenberg to share in a portion of the fee which, in my view, she deserves. Id. (Sawaya, J., dissenting). While Schwichtenberg was advocating for her clients, it also appears that, once the settlement for the estate was secured, Nichols openly advocated only for Wright, as well as Wright's two children, in the division of the settlement. Because Nichols could not have represented the other survivors in the apportionment proceedings without their consent pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7(a), he would not be entitled to a fee on their portions of the recovery. On the other hand, if Schwichtenberg's services were limited to securing an increase in her clients' recovery over that proposed by Nichols, then her fee may have to be adjusted accordingly. Further, neither Nichols nor Schwichtenberg is entitled to receive payment that exceeds the maximum contingent fee permitted by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.5. As the Fourth District noted in Catapane, attorneys' fees may exceed the schedule in rule 4-1.5 only with prior court approval. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f); Catapane, 759 So.2d at 12 n. 3. As noted by the Fourth District in Catapane: If David & French were allowed the maximum fee under rule 4-1.5 while their conflict of interest required Nadine to hire her own counsel on damages, Nadine would be exposed to having to pay a fee in excess of that allowed by rule 4-15. Because David & French could not represent Nadine on damages, they are not entitled to their full fee on Nadine's portion of the recovery. 759 So.2d at 11. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.7. On the other hand, it may well be that Nichols is entitled to a fee larger than just a percentage of the recovery apportioned to his client-survivors if it can be demonstrated that his efforts played a greater role in securing the total settlement.