Court Opinion

ID: 9517075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:03:11.221218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:18.033842
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
dissenting.
The case before us represents a rare if not unique situation where an asset was explicitly excluded from the marital pot yet was funded at least in part with assets that were or should have been included in the marital pot. Because the house was so funded, I believe it represents "something created by, or recovered for, the client," Booram, 216 Ind. at 506, 25 N.E.2d at 330, and is therefore subject to an attorney's lien.
The trial court explicitly excluded the real estate as a marital asset, but it awarded to Korkos the $36,000 he had previously withdrawn from his 401(k) account and had used to purchase the real estate. The dissolution decree therefore had the effect of awarding to Korkos the equity in the real estate he had purchased with a marital asset.4 The majority's holding that the real estate does not represent something Johnston created or recovered for Korkos elevates form over substance. I would decline to do so and must therefore respectfully dissent.

. Magley notes extending an attorney's lien to encompass property outside the judgment "would expose assets not subject to the underlying action to liens which defeats the intent of the attorney lien statute." Appellee's Br. at 9. Her point is well taken, and while I believe Johnston is entitled to his lien under the unique circumstances before us, I would limit our holding to such circumstances.