Laleh v. Johnson

Citations

• 2017 CO 93
• 403 P.3d 207

Syllabus

The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' opinion affirming a trial court's order requiring a pair of litigants to pay a court-appointed accounting expert's post-settlement collection costs. The trial court appointed the expert to help resolve the litigants' complex accounting claims, and the litigants signed an engagement agreement with the expert setting forth the scope of his services and payment. After the expert commenced work, the litigants settled the case and the trial court dismissed the suit. The expert then informed the trial court that the litigants refused to pay both his outstanding fees and his costs incurred post-settlement in attempting to collect the outstanding fees. Relying on a provision in the engagement agreement stating that the litigants were responsible for payment of \all fees and expenses\ to the expert, the trial court held that the expert was entitled to the post-settlement costs he incurred while trying to collect his outstanding fees. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of the engagement agreement, holding that the agreement was silent as to the expert's post-settlement collection costs, but it nevertheless affirmed the trial court's award of the expert's post-settlement collection costs on the ground that the trial court had inherent authority to require the litigants to pay such costs. The Court held that a separate provision of the engagement agreement not previously considered by the trial court or the Court of Appeals authorized the trial court's award of the disputed post-settlement collection costs. The Court therefore affirmed the award of these costs to the expert, albeit on different grounds.