Court Opinion

ID: 9785300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:15:01.921685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:15.383026
License: Public Domain

OPALA, J.,
with whom WINCHESTER, C.J., joins, dissenting in part.
¶ 1 While I concur in the court’s analysis, I disagree with its disposition of the case. I would modify the court’s mandate by affording the lawyer, James S. Matthews, Jr., Esq., an opportunity to amend his pleadings in post-remand proceedings to re-press a hen foreclosure claim against the client’s (Mr. Mehdipour’s) judgment proceeds now in cus-todia legis. If Mr. Matthews can show that his attorney’s lien can properly be attached to these proceeds, he should be entitled to have its amount impressed as his attorney’s hen upon Mr. Mehdipour’s money, now in custodia legis, and secure its payment from the court clerk in obedience to an order of the district court.