Utah Supreme Court
Must attorneys follow Rule 24 to intervene for fee collection? Ostler v. Kunkel Explained
Summary
Neal Ostler’s former attorney Scott Kunkel filed post-judgment motions seeking attorney fees from settlement proceeds without formally moving to intervene under Rule 24. The trial court granted Kunkel’s motions and awarded him $31,496.88 from the $50,000 settlement, despite Kunkel never being a proper party to the action.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Ostler v. Kunkel, attorney Scott Kunkel represented Neal Ostler in a civil rights lawsuit against Ostler’s former employer. After Ostler settled the case for $50,000, Kunkel withdrew as counsel and filed an attorney’s lien. Rather than formally intervening under Rule 24, Kunkel filed post-judgment motions requesting the court order separate payment of attorney fees directly from the settlement proceeds. The trial court granted Kunkel’s motions without objection from Ostler, awarding Kunkel $31,496.88. Only after new counsel appeared did Ostler challenge the court’s jurisdiction to enter orders favoring a non-party.
Key Legal Issues
The Utah Supreme Court addressed two critical issues: whether Rule 24 mandates that non-parties file formal motions to intervene before participating in litigation, and whether Ostler waived objection to Kunkel’s informal intervention by failing to respond to Kunkel’s post-judgment motions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court held that Rule 24(c)’s use of “shall” creates mandatory procedural requirements for intervention. Non-parties must serve a motion stating grounds for intervention accompanied by appropriate pleadings. While parties may waive these requirements, waiver requires actual participation in the underlying action with acquiescence from existing parties. Here, Kunkel’s post-judgment motions occurred after the case had effectively ended, distinguishing this case from precedents finding de facto intervention where non-parties actively participated throughout proceedings without objection.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that attorneys seeking fees from client settlements must follow proper procedural channels. The Court noted that absent special circumstances, counsel should “bring a separate action against his client to determine the amount of his fee and to foreclose his charging lien.” Practitioners should not assume that filing an attorney’s lien alone provides sufficient basis for court intervention in fee disputes. The decision protects parties from having to respond to motions by non-parties who lack standing, while preserving attorneys’ rights to pursue fee collection through appropriate legal channels.
Case Details
Case Name
Ostler v. Kunkel
Citation
1999 UT 99
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 981697
Date Decided
October 22, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A non-party must comply with Rule 24’s procedural requirements to intervene in an action, and failure to respond to post-judgment motions by a non-party who has not properly intervened does not constitute waiver of objection to that non-party’s participation.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including proper interpretation of rules of procedure and determination of waiver standards
Practice Tip
When seeking to collect attorney fees from settlement proceeds, properly intervene under Rule 24 before filing substantive motions, or bring a separate action to avoid jurisdictional challenges.
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.