Alan E. Rothfeder v. Kaufman Gilpin McKenzie Thomas Weiss, P.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

RELEASED: 01/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1090639 Alan E. Rothfeder v. Kaufman G i l p i n M c K e n z i e Thomas W e i s s , P.C. 1090671 Jo Karen Parr v. Kaufman G i l p i n M c K e n z i e Thomas W e i s s , P.C. 1090723 Kaufman G i l p i n M c K e n z i e Thomas W e i s s , P.C. v. Jo Karen Parr 1090724 Kaufman G i l p i n M c K e n z i e Thomas W e i s s , P.C. v. Alan Appeals WOODALL, firm Parr, ("the f i r m " ) , legal Ultimately, claimed f r o m Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-07-1394) G i l p i n McKenzie seeking, certain Rothfeder Court Justice. Kaufman law E. among fees the legal Thomas W e i s s , sued A l a n other to E. R o t h f e d e r things, be a and Jo Karen judgment the property f e e s were P.C., an A l a b a m a of declaring the i n t e r p l e a d e d , and t h e f i r m t o be e n t i t l e d t o a l l t h e i n t e r p l e a d e d f u n d s . trial court purported t o render firm, b u t i t awarded Rothfeder 2 firm. The a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e and P a r r portions of the 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 interpleaded funds. We find the trial i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t ; t h e r e f o r e , we F a c t s and At the Rothfeder firm. time and The of Parr bylaws of the r e v e r s e and order remand. Procedural History the were court's events underlying attorneys and firm provide this action, shareholders that "[t]he in the business, a f f a i r s and p r o p e r t y o f [ t h e f i r m ] s h a l l be managed by a B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s ... who s h a l l be e l e c t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f the The shareholders." bylaws further provide B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s s h a l l have one of the following Administration, According to "responsible [the functional Legal the The "evaluat[ing] "prepar[ing] and f i s c a l year to an a n n u a l executive the of the and management: and Facilities." executive recommend[ing] legal firm Finance committee responsibility guidelines for non-legal personnel" b u d g e t and is day-to-day o p e r a t i o n e x e c u t i v e c o m m i t t e e has compensation of both The areas f o r t h e management and firm.]" "[t]he E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e made up Operations, bylaws, that s e t [ t i n g ] budget committee a l s o determines "at the end and of for the for policy." of each ... t h e amount o f f u n d s a v a i l a b l e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n Shareholders, and ... 3 calculate[s] the proposed 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 a l l o c a t i o n of funds a v a i l a b l e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n . distribution Directors In of funds shall be submitted The to the proposed Board of Warren, an for approval." February accountant 2003, Rothfeder the Baucom, t o the f i r m f o r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t a x and e s t a t e - p l a n n i n g m a t t e r s . On o f one in Geneva, w i t h Derek discuss referral practicing met Alabama, o f Warren's c l i e n t s , b e h a l f of the f i r m , Rothfeder agreed On letter letter February 23, t o r e p r e s e n t Baucom. an engagement c o n f i r m i n g the f i r m ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The engagement " r e p r e s e n t e d by R i c h a r d s o n B. among Parr K. Baucom provided, 2003, Ruth to other sent things, that Baucom [the] e n t i r e law f i r m , " a l t h o u g h M c K e n z i e I I I , and [Parr] [would] was "Rothfeder, have primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r [Baucom's] r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . " The engagement letter a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e f i r m w o u l d r e p r e s e n t Baucom on a contingency-fee basis, r e c e i v i n g 33 1/3% between $5 million and the finally determined to be federal due and from of the state Baucom's difference estate taxes estate. engagement l e t t e r p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e c o n t i n g e n c y f e e w o u l d payable within 30 days following 4 the earliest of The be certain 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 events, one o f w h i c h was t h e r e c e i p t o f an e s t a t e - t a x c l o s i n g document f r o m t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e Baucom represent died i n March her estate engagement l e t t e r . an estate-tax estate's total engagement million 2003. i n accordance firm with continued t h e terms I n J a n u a r y 2007, Baucom's e s t a t e c l o s i n g document tax l i a b i l i t y . from to of the received t h e IRS c o n f i r m i n g t h e Pursuant t o t h e terms o f t h e letter, the firm was contingency fee ("the representation The ("IRS"). then entitled Baucom t o a $1.6 fee") fori t s of the estate. R o t h f e d e r a n d P a r r met w i t h W a r r e n t o make a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r payment o f t h e Baucom f e e . During the meeting, Rothfeder a r r a n g e d w i t h W a r r e n t o have t h e Baucom f e e d e p o s i t e d interest-bearing account remain until i n escrow i n Warren's such time name, where as any r e m a i n i n g i n t o an i t would probate d i s t r i b u t i o n s were made a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r s were i s s u e d by the probate court. to confirm Parr I n a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by P a r r t o Warren the arrangements w i t h regard t o t h e Baucom f e e , stated: " [ I ] t i s a c c e p t a b l e t o [ R o t h f e d e r ] a n d me f o r y o u t o h o l d t h e f u n d s , as a g e n t , i n s u c h i n t e r e s t b e a r i n g a c c o u n t s as y o u d e t e r m i n e a p p r o p r i a t e s o l o n g as written i n s t r u c t i o n s are delivered to the f i n a n c i a l 5 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 i n s t i t u t i o n s r e q u i r i n g t h a t f u n d s can be w i t h d r a w n o n l y on t h e r e c e i p t o f w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n j o i n t l y by you and [ R o t h f e d e r ] o r me. In a d d i t i o n f o r h a n d l i n g t h e r e c e i p t and d i s b u r s e m e n t o f t h e f u n d s and s e r v i n g as t h e e s c r o w a g e n t , we a g r e e d t h a t you w i l l be e n t i t l e d t o any i n t e r e s t e a r n e d on the d e p o s i t o r y accounts." Rothfeder also agreed to pay Warren an $200,000 f o r h i s h e l p w i t h t h e Baucom e s t a t e . be paid from the Rothfeder and Warren's fees $1.6 Parr million argue because that he as landowners Parr's having in brief, a c t i o n was After a growing was Alabama." a t 21. According consistent with their meeting to discuss the This as foster perceived by Warren, enhance at Parr, met 22; this with at the McKenzie and committee. The argues: 6 and practice. attorneys "On M a r c h 1, 2007, R o t h f e d e r met w i t h M c K e n z i e and i n f o r m e d them f o r t h e f i r s t the firm had earned a fee from i r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , w h i c h he r e p r e s e n t e d was a wealthy brief, that time, firm's executive agent. Rothfeder Rothfeder G e o r g e Thomas, two to build representing firm's general At to and t o R o t h f e d e r and with f e e was escrow agreed Rothfeder's t h e Baucom f e e . Thomas c o n s t i t u t e d t h e to practice south R i c h a r d s o n M c K e n z i e and firm, "Rothfeder wanted r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h W a r r e n , who Parr Warren h e l d additional Thomas and time t h a t t s Baucom only $1.2 firm 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . R o t h f e d e r d i d n o t t e l l Thomas and M c K e n z i e t h a t t h e f e e was a c t u a l l y $1.6 m i l l i o n o r t h a t he and P a r r had a g r e e d t o g i v e D e r e k W a r r e n o v e r $200,000 o u t o f t h e f e e , p l u s a l l i n t e r e s t e a r n e d on t h e f e e . R o t h f e d e r a l s o i n f o r m e d Thomas and M c K e n z i e t h a t he w a n t e d t o r e s o l v e how t h e f e e w o u l d be s p l i t b e f o r e t h e money came i n t o t h e f i r m , and r e q u e s t e d a memorandum e x p l a i n i n g t o him how t h e Baucom f e e w o u l d be s p l i t . " The firm's brief, at 16 (emphasis in original). Rothfeder t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d Thomas and M c K e n z i e t h a t t h e Baucom f e e would be about 'overestimate $1.2 fees million net to because the he firm.' " d i d not He said, want '... to I'm c o n s e r v a t i v e and n e v e r o v e r e s t i m a t e my f e e s , and n e v e r h a v e . ' " Rothfeder's b r i e f , at 30; P a r r ' s b r i e f , at 29. Upon R o t h f e d e r ' s r e q u e s t , M c K e n z i e p r e p a r e d a memorandum outlining the proposed Rothfeder and Parr "differed greatly allocation argue from the that law the of the Baucom proposed firm's past 1 with Rothfeder's According to Rothfeder P a r r , p r i o r c o n t i n g e n c y f e e s had b e e n a l l o c a t e d five-percent rule. allocation practices r e s p e c t to the a l l o c a t i o n of contingency f e e s . " b r i e f , a t 3 1 ; P a r r ' s b r i e f , a t 29. fee. based on However, t h e f i r m a r g u e s t h a t i n May and the 2003 I t a p p e a r s t h a t b e f o r e 2003 t h e f i r m h a d c o m p e n s a t e d i t s a t t o r n e y s a c c o r d i n g t o a " f i v e - p e r c e n t r u l e , " i n w h i c h 5% o f t h e c o n t i n g e n c y f e e was d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e f i r m and t h e 1 7 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s u n a n i m o u s l y a d o p t e d a new s y s t e m , known as t h e H i l d e b r a n d t p l a n . plan, attorneys f o r the compensation Under the Hildebrandt firm " w o u l d e a c h p r e s e n t an a n n u a l p l a n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e i r a c t i v e f i l e s and e x p e c t e d income f r o m same, and other f a c t o r s the firm should consider in determining the a t t o r n e y ' s compensation f o r the year. An E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e was a p p o i n t e d b y t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s t o r e v i e w t h e p l a n and, a t y e a r end, recommend i n d i v i d u a l a t t o r n e y c o m p e n s a t i o n t o the Board [ o f D i r e c t o r s ] . The B o a r d [ o f D i r e c t o r s ] would then adopt, modify or r e j e c t the E x e c u t i v e Committee's recommendations." The firm's b r i e f , at 12. memorandum " r e i t e r a t e d the Board contingency of argues that McKenzie's t h a t the H i l d e b r a n d t plan adopted Directors f e e s a r e t o be The in firm 2003 handled expressly by the addressed firm, and E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e w o u l d a l s o , as p r o v i d e d b y t h e p l a n , make a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e The firm's b r i e f , Rothfeder at and fee's that by how the Hildebrandt allocation." 16. Parr acknowledge that the board of d i r e c t o r s a d o p t e d t h e H i l d e b r a n d t p l a n i n 2003, b u t t h e y a r g u e t h a t t h e H i l d e b r a n d t p l a n was "adopted only ' f o r calendar year r e m a i n i n g 9 5 % was d i v i d e d among t h e a t t o r n e y s who had w o r k e d on t h e c a s e and t h e a t t o r n e y t h a t o r i g i n a t e d t h e c a s e . 8 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 2003.'" R o t h f e d e r ' s b r i e f , testified a t 33; Parr's brief, a t 31. that " [ i ] t was h e r b e l i e f t h a t t h e f i v e - p e r c e n t r u l e w o u l d a p p l y t o any c o n t i n g e n c y f e e p a i d by t h e Baucom e s t a t e p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e b r u a r y 27, 2003 engagement l e t t e r e x e c u t e d p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n o f t h e H i l d e b r a n d t compensation p r o p o s a l . Parr t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was n o t aware o f any change i n t h e method of a l l o c a t i o n of c o n t i n g e n c y f e e s : "'No I am n o t . I n 2003, when t h e H i l d e b r a n d t P r o p o s a l was b r o u g h t t o t h e f i r m by t h e E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , I remember distinctly a dialogue between Alan Rothfeder and Robert Gilpin wherein [ R o t h f e d e r ] a s k e d , "What h a p p e n s i f I h i t a n o t h e r b i g f e e [ ? ] " R o b e r t ' s r e s p o n s e was, "We h a v e n ' t w o r k e d t h a t o u t y e t . We d o n ' t know how t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be h a n d l e d . " " ' T h i s was o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e t o me b e c a u s e i n F e b r u a r y , b e f o r e t h i s , I had agreed to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r doing a l l t h e w o r k i n what w o u l d be a m a j o r c a s e i n t h e Baucom m a t t e r . And I a n t i c i p a t e d that I was going t o have to expend s u b s t a n t i a l h o u r s i f I were t o r e a p t h e rewards of t h a t case. "'So h a d Mr. R o t h f e d e r n o t r e c e i v e d t h a t response from Robert G i l p i n , I would have i n q u i r e d f u r t h e r , b u t I , you know, a c c e p t e d R o b e r t ' s w o r d t h a t , hey, this h a s n ' t b e e n w o r k e d o u t , and t h i s was g o i n g t o be d e a l t w i t h I t h o u g h t as a s e p a r a t e matter.'" Rothfeder's b r i e f , a t 34-35; P a r r ' s b r i e f , 9 a t 32-33. Parr 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 Rothfeder and r e s o l v e the d i s p u t e firm says that Parr met again The On Rothfeder and 23, committee, other with 2007, t h e Parr who f i r m r e j e c t e d the May proposed Baucom fee their The in unacceptable. Parr actions with escrow that and to The the firm, a c t i n g through i t s firm also The try w o r k e d on t h e m a t t e r a letter, t h i n g s , t h a t i t f o u n d R o t h f e d e r and questionable. to firm receive offer. s e n t R o t h f e d e r and W a r r e n and Thomas o v e r d i s b u r s e m e n t o f t h e Baucom f e e . r e c e i v e 15% and t h e a t t o r n e y s 85%. with stating, Parr's regard executive arrangement to the Baucom s t a t e d t h a t p l a c i n g the outside the firm's among entire control f i r m t h e n demanded t h a t R o t h f e d e r and e x e c u t e an "Acknowledgment and Power o f A t t o r n e y , " fee was Parr giving the f i r m c o n t r o l o f t h e e s c r o w a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g t h e Baucom f e e . The firm stated that i t was meeting of the s h a r e h o l d e r s r e s p o n s e i f you do n o t s i g n . we should "prepared ... to c o n t r o l o f t h e law that he f i r m was special firm's There i s a l s o a p o s s i b i l i t y R o t h f e d e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t "the letter a i n order to address the have s u c h a m e e t i n g e v e n i f you Committee's call had do sign." statement i n the placed the fee Executive outside a ' t o t a l m i s s t a t e m e n t , and 10 that i t the was 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 an insinuation brief, that [ h e ] took a t 37; P a r r ' s b r i e f , " [ h e ] h a d no c o n t r o l o v e r their a t 35. money.'" Rothfeder t h e money. firm." Rothfeder Rothfeder's and P a r r brief, responded insisted that T h e r e was no way t h a t [ h e ] w a s n ' t g o i n g t o l e t t h a t money come i n . the Rothfeder's I t belonged t o a t 37; P a r r ' s b r i e f , t o t h e f i r m ' s May a t 35. 23, 2007, l e t t e r by r e s i g n i n g from t h e f i r m . The firm states that, on May 31, 2007, Thomas e-mailed R o t h f e d e r a n d P a r r , " a s k [ i n g ] them t o meet w i t h h i m a g a i n t o assist the firm easily and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y The in billing firm's brief, a t 19. their clients transition The f i r m so t h e y for their says could a l l departure." t h a t R o t h f e d e r and P a r r d i d not respond t o t h a t request o r t o subsequent requests for i t s best help with b i l l i n g their clients. Based upon a v a i l a b l e r e c o r d s , t h e f i r m e v e n t u a l l y b i l l e d R o t h f e d e r ' s and Parr's clients f o r t h e work p e r f o r m e d by R o t h f e d e r and P a r r b e f o r e t h e i r d e p a r t u r e from t h e f i r m . In August 2007, the firm sued Rothfeder, Parr, and W a r r e n , s e e k i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e Baucom f e e was t h e f i r m ' s p r o p e r t y . answered the complaint and f i l e d 11 Rothfeder a counterclaim, and P a r r alleging, 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, among o t h e r 1090724 t h i n g s , t h a t , by failing to act reasonably and f a i r l y i n matters r e g a r d i n g compensation, the f i r m ' s e x e c u t i v e c o m m i t t e e h a d b r e a c h e d i t s f i d u c i a r y and c o n t r a c t u a l d u t i e s t o Rothfeder In November 2007, t h e p a r t i e s Warren. fee, and P a r r . reached a settlement W a r r e n was a l l o w e d t o r e t a i n $200,000 as w e l l as any i n t e r e s t earned with o f t h e Baucom on t h e e s c r o w e d funds. W a r r e n d e p o s i t e d t h e r e m a i n i n g $1.4 m i l l i o n w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k , who d e p o s i t e d t h e money i n an i n t e r e s t - b e a r i n g a c c o u n t "to be d i s b u r s e d p u r s u a n t Rothfeder/Parr t o agreement o f t h e l a w f i r m or court order." and A l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t Warren were t h e n d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e . Between the trial court counterclaim clients firm. July 2008 and t h e b e n c h t r i a l allowed Rothfeder s e v e r a l times and f o r s e r v i c e s rendered Rothfeder moved the Parr 2009, t o amend their to interplead before they fees paid by r e s i g n e d from the and P a r r c l a i m e d t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o those i n t e r p l e a d e d funds. Parr and i n October trial On O c t o b e r 20, 2009, R o t h f e d e r court to allow them to amend and their c o u n t e r c l a i m t o add c l a i m s s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y u n d e r a t h e o r y o f quantum m e r u i t and a l l e g i n g u n j u s t 12 enrichment. 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 Also during that time, the f i r m made s e v e r a l t o i t s c o m p l a i n t , a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , interpleaded property funds, of the including firm. The interpleading those funds turning over to them continued contractual to interfere firm into the with the Baucom further the firm, relationships with On November 23, the t h a t a l l the fee, were claimed trial court Rothfeder firm's amendments the that, by instead of Parr had and its and business its clients. 2009, f o l l o w i n g a b e n c h t r i a l , the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n a l judgment, which i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s of f a c t : " 1 . The a f f a i r s o f t h e law f i r m a r e g o v e r n e d by t h e b y - l a w s , r e s o l u t i o n s , p l a n s and a c t i o n s a d o p t e d by t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f t h e l a w f i r m . " 2 . For at l e a s t the l a s t ten years, a l l c o m p e n s a t i o n , s a l a r y , b o n u s e s o r money o f any k i n d r e c e i v e d by a t t o r n e y s i n c l u d i n g [ R o t h f e d e r and P a r r ] f r o m t h e law f i r m has b e e n a p p r o v e d and authorized by t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s . I n f a c t , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h i s has b e e n t h e p r a c t i c e s i n c e the i n c e p t i o n of the [ f i r m ] i n 1983. F o r t h e y e a r s 2003 and f o r w a r d , a l l c o m p e n s a t i o n , s a l a r y , b o n u s e s o r money of any kind received by all attorneys i n c l u d i n g [ R o t h f e d e r and P a r r ] has b e e n recommended by t h e e x e c u t i v e c o m m i t t e e o f t h e law f i r m and t h e n a p p r o v e d by t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f t h e law f i r m . "3. [ R o t h f e d e r and P a r r ] v o l u n t a r i l y l e f t disassociated themselves from [the firm] 13 and and 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 [ R o t h f e d e r ' s a n d P a r r ' s ] s t o c k i n [ t h e f i r m ] h a s no marketable value. "4. [Rothfeder and P a r r ] a r e no longer p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f t h e l a w f i r m and t h e r e f o r e have no f u r t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d i s p e n s a t i o n of the law f i r m ' s a s s e t s . " The trial court then ordered: "a. The J o i n t M o t i o n o f D e f e n d a n t s R o t h f e d e r and P a r r f o r l e a v e t o amend c o u n t e r c l a i m s , f i l e d on O c t o b e r 20, 2009, i s GRANTED. "b. I n r e g a r d t o t h e [ f i r m ' s ] C o m p l a i n t as Amended, j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e [ f i r m ] and a g a i n s t [ R o t h f e d e r and P a r r ] . "c. I n regard t o the Counterclaims of [ R o t h f e d e r a n d P a r r ] as Amended, j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y rendered i n favor o f t h e [ f i r m ] and a g a i n s t [Rothfeder and P a r r ] except as s e t f o r t h i n paragraphs d & e below. "d. The C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o p a y a n d d i s b u r s e f r o m t h e i n t e r p l e d f u n d s t h e sum o f [ $ 3 4 0 , 0 0 0 ] made payable t o t h e D e f e n d a n t A l a n E. R o t h f e d e r a n d d e l i v e r e d t o h i s a t t o r n e y , M a r v i n H. C a m p b e l l . "e. The C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o p a y a n d d i s b u r s e f r o m t h e i n t e r p l e d f u n d s t h e sum o f [$50,000] made payable t o t h e Defendant Jo Karen P a r r and d e l i v e r e d t o h e r a t t o r n e y , James A n d e r s o n . "f. The [ f i r m ] i s e n t i t l e d t o have a n d r e c o v e r the remaining balance o f t h e i n t e r p l e d funds b e i n g h e l d by t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t and such funds s h a l l be d i s b u r s e d a n d made p a y a b l e b y t h e C l e r k t o [ t h e f i r m ] and d e l i v e r e d t o i t s a t t o r n e y Joe Espy, I I I . "g. [Rothfeder right, title or and P a r r ] interest 14 s h a l l have no f u r t h e r i n t h e [ f i r m ] and 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 [ R o t h f e d e r ' s and P a r r ' s ] s t o c k i n [the f i r m ] i s h e r e b y c a n c e l l e d a n d d e c l a r e d t o be n u l l a n d v o i d . "h. Any r e m a i n i n g separately disposed of d e n i e d on t h e m e r i t s . claims by the p a r t i e s not i n t h i s Order are hereby " i . A l l p a r t i e s s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h i s c a s e . "j. The p a r t i e s s h a l l b e a r t h e i r Rothfeder alternative, denied own c o s t s . " a n d P a r r e a c h moved f o r a new t r i a l t o a l t e r a n d amend t h e j u d g m e n t . those motions. Rothfeder and or, i n the The t r i a l Parr now court appeal s e p a r a t e l y ( c a s e s no. 1090639 a n d no. 1 0 9 0 6 7 1 ) , a n d t h e f i r m c r o s s - a p p e a l s ( c a s e s no. 1090723 a n d no. 1 0 9 0 7 2 4 ) . Analysis "[T]rial duties, courts, [should] judgments are i n the ordinary review their internally discharge of judgments t o i n s u r e t h a t consistent and, i f their such necessary, s u p p o r t e d b y s u f f i c i e n t f i n d i n g s t o p e r m i t r e v i e w on a p p e a l . " F o r b e s v. H a w a i i C u l i n a r y C o r p . , 8 5 Haw. 5 0 1 , 507 n.5, 946 P. 2d 609, 615 n.5 (Haw. C t . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . Effective appellate r e v i e w i s n o t p o s s i b l e where t h e r e i s "some i n c o n s i s t e n c y " i n the trial definitively court's judgment, conclude from and this Court "cannot t h e r e c o r d what t h e t r i a l i n t e n d e d when i t e n t e r e d " i t s j u d g m e n t . 15 court McCutcheon v. S l a d e , 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 993 So. 2d 428, 432 ( A l a . 2007). The issues for t h i s Court to consider. parties raise several However, e f f e c t i v e r e v i e w o f t h o s e i s s u e s i s f o r e c l o s e d by i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e court's trial judgment. The judgment i s f r a u g h t with inconsistency. The trial c o u r t f i r s t r e n d e r s judgment i n f a v o r of the f i r m " [ i ] n r e g a r d to the [firm's] Complaint as Amended." As previously m e n t i o n e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e f i r m , i n i t s amended claimed that f e e and the the a l l the other f i r m and, f u n d s a t i s s u e -- interpleaded therefore, However, t h e trial declared and t o be should court, the c l e r k to d i s b u r s e funds be $50,000 t o P a r r . of the firm with The what t h e regard under the court's t o i t s amended court's trial court findings intended of firm's control. then d i r e c t s f u n d s i t had inconsistent and forward, The trial court with of complaint. fact cast when i t e n t e r e d no light upon i t s judgment; found t h a t , " [ f ] o r the in the y e a r s 2003 a l l c o m p e n s a t i o n , s a l a r y , b o n u s e s o r money o f 16 just judgment i n f a v o r i n s t e a d , t h e y r e v e a l o n l y more a p p a r e n t i n c o n s i s t e n c y judgment. of f i r m $340,000 t o R o t h f e d e r Those d i r e c t i o n s a r e trial Baucom were t h e p r o p e r t y without explanation, the e a r l i e r p o r t i o n of the t r i a l the i n c l u d i n g the from the i n t e r p l e a d e d the p r o p e r t y complaint, any 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 k i n d r e c e i v e d by a l l a t t o r n e y s i n c l u d i n g [ R o t h f e d e r has been recommended by f i r m and firm." board the t h e n a p p r o v e d by I t i s undisputed of directors executive for resignations from t h a t i t had, work the and law law approved the awarded R o t h f e d e r the t h a t , i n December 2007, t h e recommendation t h a t Rothfeder compensation of Parr] b o a r d of d i r e c t o r s of the the committee and the and they firm. executive firm's committee's P a r r r e c e i v e no a d d i t i o n a l had performed Nevertheless, before their trial court the P a r r p o r t i o n s of the i n t e r p l e a d e d funds the firm's p r o p e r t y and s u b j e c t t o d i s t r i b u t i o n as a p p r o v e d by t h e firm's board of i n e f f e c t , p r e v i o u s l y d e c l a r e d t o be directors. Finally, the the trial Indeed, the determine recited and court's in "The how its trial court awarded, Parr reveal nothing i n t e n t i o n s when i t e n t e r e d p a r t i e s agree basis in fact. to the Rothfeder explanation, to amounts that the trial order is court that we concerning i t s judgment. amounts a w a r d e d have b a s i c problem presented the without arrived cannot by o u r at the no inability figures determine with p r e c i s i o n t h e e x a c t e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h t h a t c o u r t r e l i e d " i n d i r e c t i n g the c l e r k t o d i s b u r s e t o Rothfeder 17 and P a r r amounts 1090639, 1090671, 1090723, 1090724 from t h e i n t e r p l e a d e d funds. 103 H e n s l e y v . P o o l e , 910 So. 2 d 96, ( A l a . 2005) . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r further proceedings c o n s i s t e n t with this opinion. 1090639 1090671 1090723 1090724 ----- REVERSED REVERSED REVERSED REVERSED Stuart, Bolin, AND AND AND AND REMANDED. REMANDED. REMANDED. REMANDED. P a r k e r , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Cobb, C . J . , r e c u s e s herself. 18

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.