Utah Court of Appeals
Can attorney liens attach to child support collected by government agencies? Fisher v. Fisher Explained
Summary
Attorney M. Dirk Eastmond sought to attach his attorney lien to past-due and future child support payments collected by the Utah Office of Recovery Services on behalf of his former client. The trial court allowed the lien against past-due payments but denied it for future payments.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Fisher v. Fisher, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether attorney liens can attach to child support payments collected by the Office of Recovery Services (ORS), clarifying important limitations on attorney lien enforcement against governmental entities.
Background and Facts
Attorney M. Dirk Eastmond represented Nanette Fisher in her divorce action, obtaining judgments for past-due child support and future child support payments. When Fisher opened a case with ORS for enforcement, ORS garnished her ex-husband’s wages and collected the funds. Eastmond then filed a notice of attorney lien seeking to attach these collected funds to satisfy his attorney fees. ORS intervened and moved to quash the lien.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether attorney liens can attach to funds in the possession of ORS, a governmental entity; and (2) whether Eastmond properly intervened in the underlying action to enforce his lien against future child support payments.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court reversed the trial court’s decision allowing the lien against past-due payments. Under Utah Code § 63-30-22(2), “execution, attachment, or garnishment may not issue against a governmental entity.” This statutory restraint prevents attorney liens from attaching to funds held by ORS, regardless of contractual agreements. The court found this restriction constitutes a “restraint by law” under the attorney lien statute, Utah Code § 78-51-41.
Regarding future payments, the court dismissed Eastmond’s cross-appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Eastmond failed to properly intervene in the underlying action, and intervention after judgment entry is generally not permitted. The court emphasized that attorneys must either intervene before judgment or file a separate action to enforce attorney liens.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that attorney liens cannot reach funds held by governmental agencies, even when those funds represent client recoveries. Practitioners must carefully consider timing when seeking to enforce attorney liens in cases involving government collection agencies, ensuring proper intervention before final judgment or pursuing separate enforcement actions.
Case Details
Case Name
Fisher v. Fisher
Citation
2003 UT App 91
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20010771-CA
Date Decided
March 27, 2003
Outcome
Reversed in part and Dismissed in part
Holding
Attorney liens cannot attach to funds in the possession of a governmental entity, and attorneys seeking to enforce liens against child support payments must properly intervene in the underlying action or file a separate action.
Standard of Review
Correctness for matters of statutory construction
Practice Tip
When seeking to enforce attorney liens on child support payments, ensure proper intervention in the underlying action before judgment is entered, or file a separate action to avoid jurisdictional defects.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.