Court Opinion

ID: 9742304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:10:29.3417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.801439
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that attorney fees were properly awarded under the common fund theory.
The common fund exception was established by the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case of City of Hammond v. Darlington et al. (1959), 241 Ind. 536, 162 N.E.2d 619. In Darlington, the Supreme Court held that where representatives of a class perform services from which all other class members receive a benefit, either through the preservation or recovery of a fund, the beneficiaries may be required to equally bear the cost of reasonable attorney fees.
Id. at 542, 162 N.E.2d at 621;
see also City of East Chicago v. Broomes (1984), Ind.App., 468 N.E.2d 231, 234.
I fail to perceive how the Union Members’ defense against a malicious prosecution action, which action gave rise to their claim for attorney fees, served to create or preserve the Union treasury fund. The general rule that each party must pay its own attorney fees is controlling.
I vote to reverse the trial court’s judgment.