- 14 -
the money has been collected. Thomson v. Findlater Hardware Co.,
supra at 303. Nor does a lien create an ownership interest in
the attorney. P&T Manufacturing Co. v. Exchange Sav. & Loan
Association, 633 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. App. 1982) (holders of valid
mechanic's lien who had not foreclosed could not sue for
conversion as they were not owners and did not have legal right
to possession).
We do not find under the common law of Texas that because
petitioner's attorneys were entitled to secure their earned
contingent fee with a lien on the proceeds, the lien was a
conveyance of an ownership interest in the settlement proceeds.
We turn next to petitioners' assertion that they never
realized the amount paid petitioner's attorneys as they
transferred to Branton & Hall a 40-percent ownership interest in
petitioner's cause of action. Petitioners submit the contingency
fee agreement as evidence of the transfer.
The question before us is to what extent, if any, petitioner
could transfer to his attorneys an interest in his cause of
action. We must look to the law of Texas for the answer to the
question thus posed. Our determination in this regard should,
according to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967),
be predicated on State law, and the State's highest court is the
best authority on its own law.
In Dow Chem. Co. v. Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1962), the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011