GUARDIAN AD WHAT? - TexasBarCLE · 1996-Leon Jaworski Award for Teaching Excellence, Law Focused Education, Inc. 1995-KRLD NewsRadio 1080 Citizen of the Week, July 5,1995 1995-Honorable

GUARDIAN AD WHAT?

AL ELLIS Trial Lawyer/Mediator

Of Counsel Sommerman & Quesada, LLP

3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75219

214-720-0720 [email protected]

www.textrial.com/Attorneys/Al-Ellis/

State Bar of Texas 29th ANNUAL

ADVANCED PERSONAL INJURY COURSE Dallas – July 10-12, 2013

San Antonio – August 7-9, 2013 Houston – August 28-30, 2013

CHAPTER 38

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.textrial.com/Attorneys/Al-Ellis/

Al Ellis Of Counsel Sommerman & Quesada, L.L.P. 3 811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75219-4461 (214) 720-0720 (214) 720-0184- fax [email protected]

Education:

South Oak Cliff High School Dallas, Texas; with honors--1961

University of Texas Arlington, Texas; with honors--1965

Southern Methodist University Law School Dallas, Texas--1971

Journal of American Law & Commerce Barristers

- --- ------------------------------------------

Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity

Practice:

RESUME

Date of Birth: August 26, 1943 Spouse: Sandra (Sandy) Lee Ellis Children: Joshua Kyle Ellis, Mike Fahey, Jennifer Fahey

Military Service:

United States Army Airborne/ Infantry 1965-1969 Honorable Discharge Rank on Discharge-Captain Assignments:

Dominican Republic Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Republic of Vietnam

Federal Courts in the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; United States Supreme Court; Certified Specialist Civil and Personal Injury Trial Law--Texas Board of Legal Specialization; Certified Trial and Pre-Trial Advocate-National Board of Trial Advocacy. Tried over 175 jury trials. Mediator. Martindale-Hubbell rated AV Preeminent for 35 years.

Professional Activities (Present):

International Academy of Trial Lawyers Litigation Counsel of America (Trial Lawyer Honorary Society) The National Trial Lawyers (Top 100 Trial Lawyers) Million Dollar Advocates Forum TMCA Credentialed Advanced Mediator Association of Attorney Mediators SBOT District 6 Grievance Committee Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism (Chair 2003-2005) Dallas Bar Association (Board ofDirectors 1978, 1980-1988; Chairman ofthe Board, 1986;

Vice-President 1987 & 1988; President-Elect 1989; President 1990) Diplomate, American Board of Trial Advocates (Secretary/Treasurer, 1998; President-Dallas Chapter, 1999;

National Board ofDirectors, 2009-2010) Board of Directors, Law Focused Education, Inc. (President, 1984-1991) W. M. "Mac" Taylor, Jr., American Inn of Court Dallas Trial Lawyers Association (President 1977) Texas Trial Lawyers Association (Board ofDirectors 1976-1983, Emeritus 2005-2010) SMU Law School Trial Advocacy Instructor Sustaining Life Fellow, Texas Bar Foundation (2009-secured $1.2 million in new Fellow pledges)

Senior Life Fellow, American Board of Trial Advocates Foundation Sustaining Life Fellow, Dallas Bar Foundation Life Fellow, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Foundation American Association for Justice Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Fellow, Roscoe Pound Foundation Pro Bono College of State Bar of Texas (Charter Member) College of State Bar of Texas Senior Counsel, The College of Master Advocates & Barristers J. L. Turner Legal Association Dallas Hispanic Bar Association Dallas Association of Asian American Lawyers State Bar of Texas (frequent committee service)

Professional Activities (Past):

Editorial Committee, "Quest For Justice: Louis A. Bedford, Jr. And The Struggle For Equal Rights In Texas" (2008)

Editorial Committee, "Indomitable Sarah: The Life of Judge Sarah T. Hughes" (2006) Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline (1999-2005) President, Dallas Bar Association (1990) President, Dallas Association ofYoung Lawyers (1977) President, Dallas Trial Lawyers Association (1977) Board ofDirectors, State Bar ofTexas (1991-1994; Executive Committee 1992-94) Board ofDirectors, Legal Services ofNorth Texas (1976-1977; 1992-1994)

---------BoaraorDirectors, Texas Legal Services Center Board ofDirectors, Dallas Legal Hospice (Secretary, 1991) Board of Directors, Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (IOLTA) Board ofDirectors, State Bar College Board of Trustees, Dallas Bar Foundation State Bar of Texas District VI Grievance (PEP) Committee ABA Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship (1986-1996; Chair 1994-1996) Dallas Bar Association Courts and Courts Facilities Department Board of Directors, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law of Texas Chair, Dallas Bar Association Task Force on Professionalism Candidate for President-Elect, Texas Young Lawyers Association (1979) Executive Committee, Texas College of Trial Advocacy Dallas Committee for a Qualified Judiciary (Secretary/Treasurer 1991-1994) Guest Lecturer for Law Focused Education Teacher Training Summer Seminars 1975 to 1977, 1997

Community Activities (Past and Present):

Salesmanship Club (Camp Board 1983, 1987-1989, 1995) Board of Directors, Dallas Area Habitat for Humanity (1999-2002, 2005-2008) Habitat for Humanity House Party Chair (2001-2005) Tournament Director, Dallas Regional Golden Gloves Tournament, (1976-1996) President, Dallas Council on Alcoholism President, Dallas All Sports Association (1980) Dallas Assembly Leadership Dallas (1977-1978) Member, City of Dallas Urban Rehabilitation Standards Board (1988-93)

2

Board of Trustees, Historic Preservation League Mayor's Child Care Task Force Mayor's Task Force on Adolescent Health and School Age Pregnancy Education Committee, Dallas Chamber of Commerce Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board (1985-1987) City of Dallas Fund Solicitation Board (1987-1988) Advisory Committee, Magnet for Public Services: Government and Law D.I.S.D. (Chairman, 1981-1987) D.I.S.D. Police Academy Task Force Dallas Jaycees 1972-1980 (Board of Directors 1973-1974; Vice President 1974-1975; Legal Counsel,

1975-1976) Metropolitan Effort for Positive Youth Leadership Jaycee Park Recreation Center Advisory Committee (1974-1976) Board ofDirectors, Southwest Allied Youth (1976-1977) Chair, Skyline High School Man and His Environment Advisory Committee Advisory Council, Dallas Area Agency on Aging (1975-1977) Goals for Dallas--Public Safety Committee Leadership Dallas Advisory Committee (1981) Fair Campaign Practices Committee (1973-1975) D.I.S.D. Community Advisory Committee on Discipline

Fund-Raising Drives:

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Sarah-T:-I=£uglres-Diverstty-Fellowsnips{raisecrover$500~ooor------------------------------- ---------------

Habitat for Humanity (raised over $500,000) Bishop College Junior Achievement Help is Possible State Fair of Texas Junior Livestock Auction Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program American Heart Association

i. American Cancer Society

Awards & Honors:

2013-Dallas Bar Association Martin Luther King, Jr. Justice Award 2013-University of Texas Arlington Department of Military Science Hall of Honor Inductee 2012-Dallas Minority Attorney Program Legacy Award 20 11-University of Texas Arlington Distinguished Alumni 2011-Dallas Habitat for Humanity 20 Year Service Award 2010-Jim D. Bowmer Professionalism Award-College of the State Bar of Texas 2010-Dallas Lawyers Auxiliary Justinian Award for longstanding volunteer service 2009-Dallas Bar Association Presidential Citation 2009-J.L. Turner Legal Association C.B. Bunkley Community Service Award 2009-Dallas Habitat for Humanity Family Services Award 2007-Named as one of 500 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers in America by Lawdragon 2007-Judith Sinclair Radman Award from William "Mac" Taylor Inn of Court for the "highest standards of

public service and professionalism"

3

2004-DAYL Foundation Excellence in Profession Award 2003-2012-"The Best Lawyers in America" 2003-2012-"Super Lawyers" - Texas Monthly Magazine 2003-Dallas Habitat for Humanity Hero 2003-Texas Bar Foundation Dan R. Price Memorial Award 2003-"Best Lawyers in Dallas" - D Magazine 2002-First Recipient, " A l Ellis Award" by Dallas Minority Bars Who's Who in Finance and Business, in the World, in American Law, in America,

in the South and Southwest, in Texas 1996-Nominee, United States Presidenf s Service Award 1996-Nancy Garms Memorial Award for Outstanding Contribution to Law Focused Education 1996-Leon Jaworski Award for Teaching Excellence, Law Focused Education, Inc. 1995-KRLD NewsRadio 1080 Citizen of the Week, July 5,1995 1995-Honorable Mention, Volunteer Center Lifetime Service Award 1994~State Bar of Texas Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession Commission Excellence in Diversity Award 1994~Outstanding Third Year Director, Board of Directors, State Bar of Texas 1994--Judge Sam Williams Local Bar Leadership Award for Outstanding Contribution to the State Bar of Texas 1993—Dallas Al l Sports Association Distinguished Service Award 1993—Dallas Business Journal's Community Spirit Award 1992—Certificate of Appreciation, Dallas Tenants Association 1991—Dallas Business Journal/Who's Who in Law 1990-Legal Services of North Texas Outstanding Service Award 1990-Dallas Trial Lawyers Association Distinguished Community Involvement Award 1971- 1989-Recipient of eight Certificates of Appreciation from Superintendent of Schools, D.I.S.D. 1983-Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional and Distinguished Volunteer Service from Governor Mark White 1981-Community Council of Greater Dallas Certificate of Recognition 1979—Dallas Jaycees Distinguished Service Award 1978-Dallas Association of Legal Secretaries Boss of the Year 1977-Dallas County Young Lawyer of the Year 1977—Outstanding Young Men of America 1975—1976 Dallas Jaycees Hayward McMurray Award 1972- Wall Street Journal Award, SMU Law School 1971-Student Chief Counsel, SMU Legal Clinic

4

Guardian Ad What? Chapter 38

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SCOPE OF PAPER ............................................................................................................................................ 1

II. RULE 173 TEX. R. CIV. P. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) .................................................................................... 1 A. 173.1 Appointment Governed by Statute or Other Rules ..................................................................... 1 B. 173.2 Appointment of Guardian ad Litem ............................................................................................ 1 C. 173.3 Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 1 D. 173.4 Role of Guardian ad Litem .......................................................................................................... 1 E. 173.5 Communications Privileged ........................................................................................................ 1 F. 173.6 Compensation ............................................................................................................................. 1 G. 173.4 Review ........................................................................................................................................ 2 H. Comments. ............................................................................................................................................ 2 I. Comparison of Guardian Ad Litem and Attorney Ad Litem ................................................................ 2

III. WHEN IS THERE AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT ............................................................................. 2 A. Brownsville v. Valley Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Gamez, 894 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. 1995). ........... 2 B. Land Rover U-K, Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex. 2006). ................................................ 2 C. Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Stewart, Cox & Hatcher, PC and Turner & Assts., P.A., Respondents,

390 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2013) (Attachment A) ....................................................................................... 3

IV. TYPICAL CONFLICTS WARRANTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM .............. 3

V. COMPENSATION OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM ................................................................................... 4 A. Fees Permitted. ...................................................................................................................................... 4 B. Fees Not Permitted. ............................................................................................................................... 4 C. Application for Fees .............................................................................................................................. 4 D. Overbilling and Objection to Fees ........................................................................................................ 4

VI. ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING FUNDS ................................................................................................. 5 A. Registry of Court ................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Section 142 Trust .................................................................................................................................. 5 C. Texas Probate Code, §867 Trust ........................................................................................................... 6 D. Structured Settlements (probably the most utilized form of investment for the minor’s settlement

funds). ................................................................................................................................................... 6 E. Qualified Settlement Funds ................................................................................................................... 8

VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 9


1

GUARDIAN AD WHAT? I. SCOPE OF PAPER The purpose of this paper is to briefly outline the duty and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem in civil lawsuits involving minors and impaired individuals and to summarize the available tools for distribution of settlement proceeds. According to dictionary sources, “ad litem” means “for the particular action or proceeding.” Thus, a court-appointed guardian ad litem in a civil lawsuit involving a minor or an impaired individual is an advocate for that particular person who determines what is in the best interest of that person and who speaks on behalf of that person when conflicts or potential conflicts prevent either the parties or their attorneys from doing so. As is so often the case, rules and opinions in regard to guardians ad litem have been developed primarily due to the abuse of the system in the past which has caused the Texas Supreme Court and appellate courts to limit the duties and responsibilities of court-appointed guardians ad litem. II. RULE 173 TEX. R. CIV. P. (EMPHASIS

SUPPLIED) A. 173.1 Appointment Governed by Statute or

Other Rules This rule does not apply to an appointment of a guardian ad litem governed by statute or other rules. B. 173.2 Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

(a) When Appointment Required or Prohibited. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem for a party represented by a next friend or guardian only if:

(1) the next friend or guardian appears to

the court to have an interest adverse to the party, or

(2) the parties agree.

(b) Appointment of the Same Person for Different Parties. The court must appoint the same guardian ad litem for similarly situated parties unless the court finds that the appointment of different guardians ad litem is necessary.

C. 173.3 Procedure

(a) Motion Permitted But Not Required. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem on the motion of any party or on its own initiative.

(b) Written Order Required. An appointment must be made by written order.

(c) Objection. Any party may object to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

D. 173.4 Role of Guardian ad Litem

(a) Court Officer and Advisor. A guardian ad litem acts as an officer and advisor to the court.

(b) Determination of Adverse Interest. A guardian ad litem must determine and advise the court whether a party’s next friend or guardian has an interest adverse to the party.

(c) When Settlement Proposed. When an offer has been made to settle the claim of a party represented by a next friend or guardian, a guardian ad litem has the limited duty to determine and advise the court whether the settlement is in the party’s best interest.

(d) Participation in Litigation Limited. A guardian ad litem:

(1) may participate in mediation or a similar

proceeding to attempt to reach a settlement;

(2) must participate in any proceeding before the court whose purpose is to determine whether a party’s next friend or guardian has an interest adverse to the party, or whether a settlement of the party’s claim is in the party’s best interest;

(3) must not participate in discovery, trial, or any other part of the litigation unless:

(A) further participation is necessary to

protect the party’s interest that is adverse to the next friend’s or guardian’s, and

(B) the participation is directed by the court in a written order stating sufficient reasons.

E. 173.5 Communications Privileged Communications between the guardian ad litem and the party, the next friend or guardian, or their attorneys are privileged as if the guardian ad litem were the attorney for the party. F. 173.6 Compensation

(a) Amount. If a guardian ad litem requests compensation, he or she may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred and may be paid a reasonable hourly fee for necessary services performed.


2

(b) Procedure. At the conclusion of the appointment, a guardian ad litem may file an application for compensation. The application must be verified and must detail the basis for the compensation requested. Unless all parties agree to the application, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the total amount of fees and expenses that area reasonable and necessary. In making this determination, the court must not consider compensation as a percentage of any judgment or settlement.

(c) Taxation as Costs. The court may tax a guardian ad litem’s compensation as costs of court.

(d) Other Benefit Prohibited. A guardian ad litem may not receive, directly or indirectly, anything of value in consideration of the appointment other than as provided by this rule.

G. 173.4 Review

(a) Right of Appeal. Any party may seek mandamus review of an order appointing a guardian ad litem or directing a guardian ad litem’s participation in the litigation. Any party and a guardian ad litem may appeal an order awarding the guardian ad litem compensation.

(b) Severance. On motion of the guardian ad litem or any party, the court must sever any order awarding a guardian ad litem compensation to create a final, appealable order.

(c) No Effect on Finality of Settlement or Judgment. Appellate proceedings to review an order pertaining to a guardian ad litem do not affect the finality of a settlement or judgment.

H. Comments.

1. The rule was completely revised in 2005. 2. The rule contemplates that a guardian ad

litem will be appointed when a party’s next friend or guardian appears to have an interest adverse to the minor/impaired person because of the division of settlement proceeds. In those situations, the responsibility of the guardian ad litem as prescribed by the rule is very limited, and no reason exists for the guardian ad litem to participate in the conduct of the litigation in any other way or to review the discovery or the litigation file, except to the limited extent

that it may bear on the division of settlement proceeds.

3. Only in extraordinary circumstances does the rule contemplate a guardian ad litem to have a broader role.

4. Though an officer to the court, a guardian ad litem must not have ex parte communications with the court. “Texas Code Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.”

5. Because the role of the guardian ad litem is limited in all but extraordinary situations, and any risk that might result from services performed is also limited, compensation, if any is sought, should ordinarily be limited. (Editorial comment: it is abuse in this area by certain lawyers and judges that caused the Texas Supreme Court to greatly limit the role of the guardian ad litem.)

I. Comparison of Guardian Ad Litem and

Attorney Ad Litem

1. The term “guardian ad litem” is often confused with the term “attorney ad litem” because both are used in the TRCPs, the Probate Code, the Family Code and other statutes.

2. A guardian ad litem is an officer appointed by the court to assist in protecting the settlement interest of a party who was represented by a next friend or guardian with an adverse interest. American General Fire & Casualty Company v. Vandewater, 907 S.W.2d 491, 493 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (guardian ad litem is not child’s attorney but officer appointed by court to help protect child’s interest).

3. An attorney ad litem performs the same services as an attorney, giving legal advice, doing research and conducting litigation for an incapacitated party. City of Houston v. Woods, 138 S.W.3d 574, 582 (Tex. App.−Houston, 14th Dist. 2004, no pet.)

III. WHEN IS THERE AN APPEARANCE OF A

CONFLICT A. Brownsville v. Valley Regional Medical Center,

Inc. v. Gamez, 894 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. 1995). As previously stated, the court must appoint a

guardian ad litem for a party represented by a next friend or guardian when the next friend or guardian appears to have an interest adverse to the party.

B. Land Rover U-K, Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d

604, 607 (Tex. 2006). A guardian ad litem is not an attorney for the

child, but an officer appointed by the court to assist in


3

protecting the child’s interest when a conflict of interest arises between the child and the child’s guardian or next friend. As a personal representative of a minor, a guardian ad litem is required to participate in the case only to the extent necessary to protect the minor’s interest, and should not duplicate the work performed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

C. Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Stewart, Cox &

Hatcher, PC and Turner & Assts., P.A., Respondents, 390 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2013) (Attachment A)

1. The recent Supreme Court per curiam

decision in Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Stewart, et al. is another attempt by the Texas Supreme Court to limit the appointment and activity of court-appointed guardians ad litem.

2. The facts leading to the appointment of the guardian ad litem in this case are somewhat convoluted in that there were two settlements, one with Firestone in which no guardian ad litem was appointed and one with Ford Motor Company in which a guardian ad litem was appointed due to the court’s finding the next friend’s obligation to pay her daughter’s medical expenses, coupled with her desire to pay the medical bills with proceeds from the settlement, constituted a conflict necessitating the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The Texas Supreme Court held: “. . . a parent’s obligation to provide her child with medical care, standing alone, does not create a conflict of interest within the confines of Rule 173.” (emphasis supplied).

3. It may be argued that within the confines of this restrictive holding, the appointment of a guardian ad litem was not warranted. As a practical matter, those who deal with minor settlements know from experience there is rarely such a simple fact scenario in which the next friend is conflicted only because of the parent’s obligation to provide the minor with medical care. The medical care issue, coupled with other conflicts, is not that simple. It is apparent the writer of this Supreme Court per curiam opinion may not been involved in a trial practice at all or for a very long time

4. The issue of the duty and obligation for medical care for a minor or impaired person is often more complex. It is not just the issue of duty and responsibility to pay medical bills standing alone, but more often involves

issues of subrogation claims from Medicaid, health insurance companies, hospitals, etc. In short, it is naïve at best to believe a parent, acting as a next friend, would ever be more than willing to assume the personal responsibility for medical bills, Medicaid, subrogation liens and hospital liens as opposed to wanting those obligations to be paid from the minor’s settlement proceeds.

5. The above is true, especially when there is a so-called “friendly” suit, whereby the next friend is pro se. In that situation, almost 100% of the time the next friend wants no personal responsibility for payment of medical bills and subrogation claims, and wants all of the responsibility for payment to come from the minor’s settlement proceeds. The conflict is apparent in spite of the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court in Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Stewart, Cox & Hatcher, et al.

6. The issue of how trial courts will react to Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Stewart, Cox & Hatcher, et al. has yet to be determined. Will they require a detailed analysis of the nature and extent of any conflict by an appointed guardian ad litem before he/she performs any services whatsoever, or will they continue to appoint guardians ad litem whenever a minor or impaired person settlement is contemplated, allowing the guardian ad litem to perform his/her limited duties and responsibilities pursuant to Rule 173, TEX. R. CIV. P.? The final answer will probably be determined when appointed guardians ad litem abuse their appointment and attempt to obtain ad litem fees in excess of those warranted by Rule 173, TEX. R. CIV. P.

IV. TYPICAL CONFLICTS WARRANTING

THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

A. Multiple family claimants with limited funds

to resolve all claims, especially in wrongful death lawsuits or personal injury automobile accidents in which several individuals in the same vehicle or vehicles have been injured and are making claims against liability insurance carriers where minimum policy limits exist.

B. Parents wanting to control settlement proceeds and the manner in which an injured child shall receive those proceeds.


4

C. Parents wanting to ensure all medical bills and subrogation claims are paid from the minor’s settlement funds when limited funds are available and the best interest of the minor would be for the parents to assume the responsibility for those payments.

D. Where subrogation claims and liens such as Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subrogation claims, hospital or workers’ compensation liens exist. For a detailed and thorough analysis of all subrogation claims that may be made against a minor’s settlement proceeds, see Judy Kostura’s article presented annually at the SBOT Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, entitled “Subrogation and Liens, Medicare and Medicare Set Asides.”

1. This just in – recently passed House Bill

1869 reforms the Supreme Court decision in Fortis v. Cantu, and allows for proportionate distribution of health insurance subrogation claims beginning January 1, 2014. (Attachment C.) Since the duty of the guardian ad litem includes negotiating and reducing outstanding subrogation claims and liens, especially when the plaintiff is pro se, it is behooving guardians ad litem to become familiar with this new law. While there may be no conflict between the parent/next friend and the minor, there is a definite conflict between the injured minor and all of the entities claiming a subrogation interest in his/her settlement. This conflict, in and of itself, warrants, if not mandates, the appointment of a guardian ad litem, an issue which the Texas Supreme Court may not fully appreciate.

V. COMPENSATION OF THE GUARDIAN AD

LITEM A. Fees Permitted.

The guardian ad litem is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered. Land Rover UK, Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d, 604, 607 (Tex. 2006). Generally speaking, a guardian ad litem is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred and a reasonable hourly fee for services performed. Rule 173.6(a), TEX. R. CIV. P.

B. Fees Not Permitted.

1. A guardian ad litem cannot be paid for work performed outside the scope of his/her duties

as guardian ad litem. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d at 607.

2. A guardian ad litem cannot be awarded fees for services to be performed or performed after the conflict of interest that necessitated his/her appointment has been resolved. Frank A. Smith Sales, Inc. v. Flores, 907 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex. 1995).

3. A guardian ad litem cannot be awarded fees for representing his/her own interest. Holt Texas, Ltd. v. Hale, 144 S.W.3d 592, 597-98 (Tex. App.−San Antonio 2004, no pet.).

C. Application for Fees

Generally speaking, a guardian ad litem should make a formal application for fees if no agreement regarding fees and expenses can be reached with the defendant’s lawyers. (Attachment B.) The most expeditious way to handle payment of fees is for the guardian ad litem and the defense lawyers to agree upon the fee and reimbursement of expenses which can be accomplished most of the time. D. Overbilling and Objection to Fees

1. To complain about the guardian ad litem fees

on appeal, a party must make its objection known to the trial court either orally (on the record during the litigation or at the hearing on guardian ad litem fees) or in writing in a motion or response filed with the court. Jocson v. Crab, 133 S.W.3d 268, 269-70 (Tex. 2004).

2. Overbilling a. The guardian ad litem should not be

compensated for overbilling his/her expenses and services. Jocson v. Crab, 133 S.W.3d 268, 269-70 (Tex. 2004). (Guardian ad litem submitted a bill for, among other things, $5,250.00 for reviewing deposition notices, $35,900.00 for attending depositions and $19,000.00 for reviewing letters.) Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Gamez, 151 S.W.3d 574, 582 (Tex. App.−San Antonio 2004, no pet.). (Six guardians ad litem submitted a bill for just under $400,000.00, including charges for time spent sleeping, for summarizing depositions, for associates’ work and for more than 24 hours in a day for more than one attorney.)

b. Editorial Comment: It should be remembered the work of a guardian ad litem is a service to assist the court in


5

ensuring a person is receiving a fair settlement, has someone looking out for his/her best interest and has someone ensuring the settlement distribution is fair and reasonable to the minor or incapacitated person. It is not, and was never intended to be, a cottage industry for attorneys. The conduct described above has resulted in attempts to strictly limit the role of the guardian ad litem as a service to the court and, in many ways, has inhibited the guardian ad litem from performing his or her responsibility.

VI. ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING FUNDS A. Registry of Court

1. Settlement or judgment proceeds recovered on behalf of a minor or impaired person may be invested by the clerk of the court. Tex. Prop. Code, §142.004(a).

2. This type of investment is the worst of those available, especially in light of today’s low interest rates. The clerk of the court may only invest the proceeds in a savings account or certificate of deposit domiciled in Texas and insured by the FSLIC.

3. If the minor has no Social Security number, most clerks will not invest the funds, holding them in registry without interest.

4. As a general rule, this investment should only be utilized when the net funds to the minor are relatively small or the minor will turn 18 within a short period of time following the investment of funds.

5. Any judgment ordering such an investment should contain language which allows the minor to obtain the funds upon reaching the age of 18 and providing proper identification to the clerk of the court without the necessity of further order by the court.

6. When the minor is relatively young or the net funds to the minor are in excess of $10,000.00, alternative investments should be utilized so that the minor will not be receiving a large sum of money at age 18, when the minor may not be mature enough to handle the funds.

7. Caveat. Section 142.004, Texas Prop. Code, allows investment into Texas Tomorrow Funds (www.texastuitionpromisefund.com;1-800-445-4723). If the judge directs the investment in a court order, district and county clerks must do so.

B. Section 142 Trust

1. The purpose of a Section 142 Trust is to provide a management vehicle for proceeds received from judgments or settlements in favor of minors or impaired persons. Tex. Prop. Code, §142.005.

2. A Section 142 Trust can be created only if the next friend applies for it, and they must show the court the trust is in the best interest of a person. Factors the court should consider include:

a. Beneficiary’s age; b. Maturity of the beneficiary; c. Amount and type of recovery (when

using banks as corporate trustees, minimum investment is usually $200,000-$300,000. Smaller investments for impaired persons only can be pooled with Arc of Texas Master Pooled Trust, 1-800-252-9729);

d. Beneficiary’s family situation; e. Desire for professional management and

supervision by a corporate trustee; and f. Trustee’s flexibility in making

discretionary distributions according to the varying needs of the beneficiary.

3. Qualifications of the Trustee – the Trustee of

the Section 142 Trust must be a trust company or a state or national bank having trust powers in Texas. Tex. Prop. Code, §142.005(a).

4. Revocation and Amendment – the trust is irrevocable and unamendable except by the court. Tex. Prop. Code, §142.005(d).

5. Mandatory Trust Provisions - there are several mandatory trust provisions established by the Texas Property Code, §142.005. For this reason, the guardian ad litem should employ an attorney familiar with the establishment of these trusts to draft necessary trust documents. Most of the time, the expense of drafting trust documents can be reimbursed to the guardian ad litem upon application to the court or with agreement of the defendant’s lawyers.

6. Advantages of the Section 142 Trust:

a. The trustee may make discretionary distributions to the beneficiary without court approval and in amounts consistent with the beneficiary’s health, education and support needs;

http://www.texastuitionpromisefund.com/


6

b. The trust may continue until the beneficiary reaches age 25. It does not have to terminate at the earlier age of 18;

c. The trust may be established to receive settlement proceeds in the form of installment or annuity payments as part of a structured settlement;

d. Flexibility – Trusts are managed by professionals and they can change the portfolio (or asset allocation) of a trust to accommodate the changing needs of the beneficiary. [Changes in the percentage of investments in stocks (equities) versus bonds (fixed income)].

e. Transparency – most corporate trustees provide monthly statements to the beneficiary and/or their representative to show all activity in the account.

f. Regulated Financial Institution – Corporate trustees are not only internally audited by their parent corporation, but are also regulated by the federal government through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

g. Investment Management – At many corporate trustees, a professional money manager is assigned to handle investments.

h. Personal Representative – At most regional and community based banks, the trust department provides a personal representative that works with the family.

i. The trust may be established as a “Special Needs” or “Medicaid-Qualifying” trust, which will allow the injured person to preserve his/her eligibility to receive governmental benefits during the lifetime of the injured person. When the injured person dies, the remaining assets of the trust are used to reimburse the governmental assistance program which paid the benefits, provided assets remain in the trust at the time of the death. Tex. Prop. Code, §142.005(g).

C. Texas Probate Code, §867 Trust These trusts are similar to §142 trusts, but can be established pursuant to the Texas Probate Code, §§867 to 873 in a situation where a formal guardianship has been established by a probate court for a minor or incapacitated person.

D. Structured Settlements (probably the most utilized form of investment for the minor’s settlement funds).

1. Historically, damages paid because of a

personal injury lawsuit came in the form of a lump sum at the time of the settlement or judgment. This kind of payment placed the claimant or the family in the position of managing a large sum of money, which was intended to provide for a lifetime of medical and income needs. Since most people were not experienced in handling large sums, there was always a danger the money would be spent quickly or invested unwisely, leaving little or nothing to cover future needs of a seriously injured person.

2. With IRS rulings in 1977 and 1979, the value of purchasing a structured settlement with settlement proceeds was enhanced for the payments made pursuant to a structured settlement remained non-taxable.

3. A structured settlement is any settlement paid out over more than one payment. For years, structured settlements have been widely used in the tort area to compensate injured persons by providing the injured party the ability to receive their damages in the form of tax-free periodic payments. These tax-free payments come from a well-capitalized, financially experienced institution, and are tailored to meet the injured minor’s future medical expenses, basic living needs or college expenses. Claims professionals, plaintiff attorneys, judges and defense lawyers advocate the use of structured settlements because they can effectively meet a claimant’s needs for security, and provide more benefits over time than a single lump-sum settlement because of applicable tax rates.

4. The following are but a few applications where a structured settlement could be considered:

a. Lost income/fringe benefits; b. Lifetime income; c. College fund (especially for minors); d. Medical needs (catastrophic injury); e. Protect minor’s benefits until legal

adulthood; f. Retirement income; g. Special needs trust; h. Future medical needs i. Tax management and fringe benefits

guaranteed for life.


7

5. Benefits of a Structured Settlement

a. An assured payment stream that is fully tax-free as damages as long as IRS requirements are met.

b. Structured settlements paid into Section 142 Special Needs Trust still allow the claimant his/her entitlement to Medicaid/Medicare services.

c. The rate of return available on a commercial annuity is more certain than the rate of return on an investment of trust assets under the Section 142 Trust approach, though the certain rate of return may be higher or lower than the investment of trust assets.

d. Avoiding the risk of mismanagement of trust funds, as the structured settlement payments are usually guaranteed, funded by a major insurance company and protected by various states’ guaranty funds.

e. Claimant receives compensation when it is needed as opposed to a lump sum which may be foolishly spent or invested.

f. The claimant can receive more compensation over time than with a lump sum settlement.

g. No annual fees or management charges. h. Structured funds cannot be attached

through a court proceeding. A lien cannot be placed against these proceeds.

6. Disadvantages of a Structured Settlement

a. Inflexibility of the payout schedule once

a structured settlement is purchased. b. Future unanticipated problems may arise

which will not be covered by the structured fund payments, and which may have been more easily taken care of through a Section 142 Trust.

7. Annuity Options

a. Guaranteed period certain – the annuity

is paid for a specific period. If the beneficiary dies during the period, the beneficiary’s estate or other designated beneficiary will receive the remaining installments.

b. Lump sum – payment of a fixed sum of money at a specified future date. The lump sum is a guaranteed payment and distributed as above.

c. Life only annuity – annuity payments are paid during the beneficiary’s lifetime. Upon death, the obligation to make the payments terminates.

d. Life annuity with guaranteed term – the annuity is paid as long as the beneficiary is living, but not less than a specified period. The specified period represents guaranteed payments, consequently, if the beneficiary dies during the specified period, the beneficiary’s estate or other designated beneficiary shall receive the remaining installments.

8. Late Night TV – Why Wait Years For Your

Annuity Payments? Get Fast Cash Now!

a. Annuitants, especially minors once they reach adulthood, are often tempted by late night ads on television offering to purchase their annuity and provide them with ready cash. Fortunately, in 2001, Texas enacted the Structured Settlement Protection Act which regulates and controls the sale of annuities.

b. Structured Settlement Protection Act, Section 141.001, et. seq., CIV. P. REM. CODE.

(1) In order for an annuitant to sell

his/her structured settlement, the annuitant must obtain court approval and prove the transfer is in the best interest of the annuitant, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependants. §141.004, CIV. P. REM. CODE.

(2) The transfer must either be approved by the court whether the original lawsuit was filed, or if that court no longer has jurisdiction over the annuitant, a court in the county in which the payee resides. §141.002, CIV. P. REM. CODE.

c. Most courts require, and it is always

wise, to include a paragraph in the final judgment specifically referring to the Structured Settlement Protection Act, and the fact an annuity cannot be sold without court approval.

d. While there are often legitimate financial reasons for an annuitant to sell his/her annuity, as a general rule, sale is not a good idea as most of the companies purchasing annuities will


8

initially try to purchase the annuity for as little as 20¢ on the dollar.

e. Conscientious judges who receive a petition for the purchase of an annuity, will often appoint an attorney ad litem (not guardian ad litem) to represent the annuitant to determine if it is in the annuitant’s best interest to sell the annuity and to negotiate the best possible purchase price on behalf of the annuitant. In this regard, the attorneys’ fees for the attorney ad litem will most often be paid by the company purchasing the annuity.

f. Attached as Attachment D is a list of companies who purchase annuities and who are members of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers. In all instances in which an annuitant or the attorney ad litem has received a purchase offer for an annuity, efforts should be made to contact one or more of the companies listed in order to negotiate the best possible purchase price.

E. Qualified Settlement Funds

1. When a settlement offer has been made that your client wishes to accept, and there is little time to negotiate various subrogation claims and make a determination in regard to structured settlement options, allocation issues and special needs trusts, a Section 468B Qualified Settlement Trust is often the answer (for an excellent discussion of the Qualified Settlement Trust, see the several papers authored by Pi-Yi Mayo of Baytown, Texas for past SBOT seminars.

2. Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code allows defendants to make payments to a court-created trust fund. Generally speaking, 458B funds act as an intermediary party to a lawsuit. These funds allow defendants and their insurers to make payments to a court-created trust fund. The fund is subject to the court’s continued oversight. The payments to the fund made by the defendants are tax deductible to the defendants at the time payment is made, no matter when the plaintiff actually receives payment from the fund. The fund administrator then works to make proper allocations among plaintiffs and claims, and has the flexibility to arrangement payments in a number of ways, including cash payments, periodic payments or through

a Special Needs Trust. Payments to the plaintiffs in whatever form they may take remain non-taxable.

3. By establishing a Qualified Settlement Trust, the plaintiffs have much more flexibility. Paying settlement funds from the individual defendant into a Qualified Settlement Trust until all claims have been settled allows the plaintiffs a better picture of the entire settlement amount which remains in the Trust until all claims are settled, while earning interest for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do not have constructive receipt as long as there are sufficient allocation issues still in dispute.

4. Advantages of Using a Qualified Settlement Trust.

a. Allows defendants to disengage from

litigation quickly. b. Defendants can walk away from the

litigation without being bothered by allocation issues or waiting on Medicare or Medicaid liens to be settled.

c. Gives the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel breathing space to finalize allocation issues.

d. Allows the settlement to move forward while preserving all distribution options for each plaintiff.

e. Allows each plaintiff time to decide on the form of distribution that best suits his or her needs.

f. Allows the fund administrator to negotiate with individual claimants in regard to allocation disputes.

g. Helps eliminate the risk of insolvency by the defendant or its insurer.

h. Allows the plaintiff to earn interest on the funds while the money is in the Qualified Settlement Trust. In cases of large settlements, this can be a major advantage to the plaintiff and, in turn, prevents the defendant from earning interest on those funds until they are paid to the plaintiff.

i. Subject to approval of the court, a Qualified Settlement Trust may pay attorneys’ fees as soon as proceeds have been delivered to the Trust. However, this process is not recommended in that it can create hard feelings by the plaintiff in regard to his/her attorney who has been paid while the plaintiff awaits his/her payment.


9

VII. CONCLUSION The role, duty and responsibilities of the guardian

ad litem have been limited by Rule 173 TEX. R. CIV. P. and Supreme Court and Appellate Court decisions. Be that as it may, it is a rare settlement that will not appear to have an interest adverse to the minor or impaired person, justifying the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Furthermore, it is clear the parties can agree to the appointment of a guardian ad litem in such cases, providing protection to all involved through an independent, court-supervised set of eyes.

The primary key to success with the appointment of a guardian ad litem whose job it is to be of service to the court, is for guardians ad litem not to abuse the privilege by attempting to charge unreasonable fees and expenses. If at all possible, the guardian ad litem and attorneys for the defendants should come to an agreement on the ad litem fee.

The primary role of the guardian ad litem, especially where the plaintiff is pro se, is to ensure the best interests of the one being protected by the settlement and the distribution of the settlement proceeds. Depending on the size of the settlement, several vehicles for apportionment of the settlement funds are available and have been discussed.

ATTACHMENT A


11

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1

390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

Supreme Court of Texas.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Petitioners,

v. STEWART, COX, AND HATCHER, P.C. and Turner

& Associates, P .A., Respondents.

No. 11-0818.

Jan. 25, 2013.

Background: After a personal injury action was filed

against motor vehicle manufacturer on behalf of in

jured minor, the 410th District Court, Montgomery

County, K. Michael Mayes, J., sua sponte appointed

guardian ad litem and subsequently awarded fees to

guardian ad litem pursuant to settlement agreement.

Manufacturer and next friend appealed. The Beau

mont Court of Appeals, 350 S.W.3d 369, affirmed in

part and reversed in part. Manufacturer and next friend

appealed.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that there was no

apparent conflict of interest between next friend and

injured minor to warrant sua sponte appointment of

guardian ad litem.

Reversed in part and remanded.

West Headnotes

ill Infants 211 ~1355

ill Infants

211 VII Actions

211 VII(D) Appeal and Review

211k1355 k. Preservation of grounds for

review. Most Cited Cases

Motor vehicle manufacturer preserved for appel

late review its challenge to guardian ad litem fee

award in personal injury action fled by injured minor,

where manufacturer objected to fee award at settle

ment prove-up hearing, and the trial court overruled

objection. Rules App.Proc., Rule 33.1(a).


211 Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend

211 VII(A) Role of Representative or Counsel

2llkl234 Guardian Ad Litem or Next

21lk1244 k. Compensation and ex

penses. Most Cited Cases

Once appointed, the guardian ad litem has a lim

ited role in the litigation and may be compensated only

for certain types of activities. Vernon's Ann.Texas

Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 173.

ill Infants 211 ~1237(1)

ill Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend

211VII(A) Role of Representative or Counsel

21lk1234 Guardian Ad Litem or Next

2llkl237 Appointment in General

21lkl237(1) k. In general. Most

Cited Cases

Infants 211 ~1246(1)

211 Infants

211 VII Actions


© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12

FOREDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page2

390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

2llk1234 Guardian Ad Litem or Next 173.

Friend

211 k 1246 Duties, Responsibilities, and

Liabilities

2llkl246(1) k. In general. Most

Cited Cases

The context of a guardian ad litem appointment

and duties assigned to the ad litem determine the na

ture ofthe appointment and the duties of the ad litem.

Vernon's Ann.Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 173.


211 Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend

211VIICA) Role of Representative or Counsel

2llk1234 Guardian Ad Litem or Next

211k1243 k. Resignation, removal, and

successorship. Most Cited Cases

The trial court should remove a guardian ad litem

when the evidence presented fails to confirm that a

conflict of interest exists. Vernon's Ann. Texas Rules

Civ.Proc., Rule 173.4(b).


211 Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend

211 VII( A) Role of Representative or Counsel


211k1244 k. Compensation and ex

penses. Most Cited Cases

The trial court has no discretion to award a

guardian ad litem compensation for services rendered

after it has become clear that no conflict of interest

exists, because such services would no longer be

necessary. Vernon's Ann. Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule

1§1 Infants 211 ~1366

ill Infants

211 VII Actions

211 VII(D) Appeal and Review

211kl366 k. Discretion oflower court. Most

Cited Cases

The Supreme Court reviews the amount a guard

ian ad litem is awarded as compensation for an abuse

of discretion, which occurs when the trial court rules:

(1) arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without regard to

guiding legal principles, or (2) without supporting

evidence. Vemon's Ann.Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule

173.

ill Infants 211 ~1238(1)

ill Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend


2111<:1234 Guardian Ad Litem or Next

2111<:1238 Necessity and Grounds in

Particular Actions or Proceedings

21lkl238(1) k. In general. Most

Cited Cases

Infants 211 ~1240(1)

ill Infants

211 VII Actions

Friend

211 VII( A) Role of Representative or Counsel


2llk1240 Proceedings for Appointment

211kl240(1) k. In general. Most

Cited Cases



13


390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

There was no apparent conflict of interest be

tween next friend and injured minor to warrant sua

sponte appointment of guardian ad litem in personal

injury action against motor vehicle manufacturer,

where next friend, minor's mother, was not involved in

the accident, was not asserting any claims on her own

behalf, was not an heir or representative of minor's

father, who was killed in accident, had no financial

interest in recovery by estate of father, and stated that

she understood that she had no right to proceeds of

litigation on behalf of minor. Vernon's Ann.Texas

Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 173.

*295 C. Talbot 'Tab' Turner, Jeny M. White, Turner

& Associates PA, N. Little Rock, AR, Lauren Beck

Hanis, Jonna Noel Summers, Porter Hedges LLP,

Houston, TX, for I.F.

Craig A. Morgan, Michael W. Eady, Sara M. Berke-

10:, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP, Austin, TX,

for Ford Motor Co.

Jolm Milutin, Law Offices of Jolm Milutin, Jonathan

Mark Little, Wanen W. Hanis, Bracewell & Giuliani

LLP, Houston, TX, for Guardian Ad Litem for the

Minor, I.F.

C Talbot 'Tab' Turner, Jerry M. White, Turner &

Associates PA, N. Little Rock, AR, Martin J. Siegel,

Law Offices Of Martin J. Siegel, PC, Houston, TX, for

Stewart, Cox and Hatcher, PC.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a dispute over the trial

court's sua sponte appointment of a guardian ad litem

and subsequent fee award to the guardian ad litem in

connection with a personal injury settlement between

a minor-plaintiff and Ford Motor Company. Because

the trial court should have removed the guardian ad

litem after it became clear that the next friend did not

have interests adverse to the minor, the guardian ad

litem's services were no longer necessary under Rule

173 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore,

the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded

the guardian ad litem compensation for the rendition

of unnecessary, non-compensable services. Accord

ingly, we reverse*296 the court of appeals' judgment

in part, and remand the case to the trial court for fur

ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In 1999, I.F. was severely injured after being

ejected from a minivan during a one-car rollover ac

cident. I.F.'s father was killed in the accident. Theresa

Richardson, I.F.'s mother, was not involved in the

accident.FNI Richardson, as I.F.'s next friend, sued

Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire,

L.L.C. in district court in Orange County. A district

judge sitting in Montgomery County was assigned as

the pretrial judge for this case and other similar cas

es.FN2 See TEX.R. JUD. ADMIN. 11 (providing for

the assigmnent of a pretrialjudge in cases that involve

material questions of fact and law in common with

another case pending in another court in another

county). In 2003, Firestone and I.F. reached a settle

ment and presented the proposed settlement to the

regular judge for approval. Upon approving the Fire

stone settlement, the regular judge found that no

guardian ad litem appointment was necessary because

there was no conflict of interest between Richardson

and I.F. In late 2009, Ford reached a settlement with

I.F. That settlement was jointly presented to the pre

trial judge for approval. Acting on his own initiative,

the pretrial judge appointed attorney Jolm Milutin to

represent I.F.'s interest in the settlement under Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 173. See TEX.R. CIV. P.

173.3(a) (providing that the trial court "may appoint a

guardian ad litem on the motion of any party or on its

own initiative").

FNl. Richardson was divorced from I.F.'s

father at the time of the accident and was

neither an heir nor a representative of his

estate.

FN2. The trial court judge sitting in Orange



14

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page4

390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

County, where the case was originally filed

and remained pending, is hereinafter referred

to as the "regular judge." See TEX.R. JUD.

ADMIN. 11.2(b).

Richardson, as next friend of I.F., initially chal

lenged Milutin's appointment by filing an "Agreed

Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Guardian Ad

Litem," which included Richardson's affidavit in op

position to that appointment. FN3 In the affidavit,

Richardson testified that her interests were not adverse

to I.F.'s because she made no claims in the lawsuit and

had no financial interest in the settlement. Milutin

responded to Richardson's motion by stating, in sum,

that he had "inadequate information upon which to

determine and advise the Court whether [Richardson]

has an interest adverse to [I.F.]" due to the plaintiffs

failure to provide him with information that he had

requested regarding the settlement. The pretrial judge

denied Richardson's motion to reconsider. Richard

son, as next friend ofi.F., then unsuccessfully sought

mandamus relief from the order appointing Milutin as

guardian ad litem. In re Richardson. No.

09-10-00032-CV, 2010 WL 877558, at *1, 2010

Tex.App. LEXIS 1758, at *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont

Mar. 11, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

FN3. The court of appeals stated that Ford

"joined" Richardson's motion to reconsider.

350 S.W.3d 369, 377. Ford states in this

Court, however, that it neither joined nor

agreed to that motion, but simply told Rich

ardson that it would not oppose it.

Ultimately, the pretrial judge rendered a judgment

that (1) approved the Ford settlement, (2) "reap

proved" the 2003 Firestone settlement, subject to a

reduction of attorney's fees from the forty percent

previously approved in the Firestone Settlement to

one-third, and (3) ordered Ford to pay $40,000.00 to

Milutin in guardian ad litem fees and expenses. A

divided court of appeals affirmed the pretrial judge's

*297 appointment of Milutin as guardian ad litem,

fmding that Richardson's obligation to pay her

daughter's medical expenses coupled with her desire

to pay the medical bills with proceeds from the set

tlement constituted the conflict necessitating the ap

pointment ofMilutin as guardian ad litem. 350 S. W.3d

369,377-78. The court of appeals also affirmed the ad

litem fee award.FN4 Id. at 381.

FN4. The court of appeals dealt with two

separate appeals in this case. I.F.'s attorneys

also appealed the trial court's reduction of

their fees associated with the 2003 Firestone

settlement. 350 S.W.3d at 373. The court of

appeals reversed the pretrial judge's order on

that issue, holding that the pretrial judge

abused his discretion by disregarding the

regular judge's 2003 order that approved the

Firestone settlement and the attorney's fees

and expenses paid to I.F.'s attorneys from

that settlement. Jd. at 381. Richardson, as

I.F.'s next friend, petitioned this Court for

review as to that portion of the court of ap

peals' judgment, but we deny her petition.

Thus, we address only the guardian ad litem

issue presented by Ford's petition.

Ford argues that the trial court abused its discre

tion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 173 by ap

pointing a guardian ad litem when there was no ap

parent conflict of interest between I.F. and Richard

son. Ford also complains of the amount ofthe guard

ian ad litem's fee award and the taxing of the entire

award against Ford.

ill We initially note that Ford preserved its issues

surrounding the guardian ad litem fee award. Rich

ardson and Ford initially filed a joint motion request

ing that the pretrial judge approve Ford's proposed

settlement, in which both parties notified the pretrial

judge that a guardian ad litem appointment was un

warranted in this case. When Richardson challenged

the guardian ad litem appointment by mandamus

review, Ford filed a letter in that proceeding, averring



15


390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

that the appointment was "neither appropriate nor

permitted." 2010 WL 877558, at *3-4, 2010 Tex.App.

LEXIS 1758, at *8. More importantly, Ford objected

to the fees at the settlement prove-up hearing, and the

trial court overruled Ford's objections. See

TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a); see alsoJocsonv. Crabb, 133

S.W.3d 268, 270 (Tex.2004) (per curiam) ("The final

fee hearing is an appropriate forum to assert any ob

jections to the fee request and obtain a ruling.").

[2][3][ 4][5][ 61 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 173

governs the procedure for appointing and compen

sating a guardian ad litem. See TEX.R. CIV. P: 173.

The trial court must appoint a guardian ad litem pur

suant to Rule 173 when there appears to be a conflict

of interest between the minor and next friend. TEX.R.

CIV. P. 173.2. Once appointed, the guardian ad litem

has a limited role in the litigation and may be com

pensated only for certain types of activities. Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 579

(Tex.2012). "The context of the appointment and

duties assigned to the ad litem determine the nature of

the appointment and the duties of the ad litem." Id at

577. The guardian ad litem's initial role is to "deter

mine and advise the court whether a party's next friend

... has an interest adverse to the party." TEX.R. CIV.

P. 173.4(b). The trial court should remove the guard

ian ad litem when the evidence presented fails to

confirm that a conflict of interest exists. Cj Brownsville-Valley Reg'! Med Ctr. v. Gamez, 894 S.W.2d

753, 755 (Tex.1995) ("When the conflict of interest no

longer exists, the trial court should remove the

guardian ad litem."). Rule 173 authorizes the trial

court to award an ad litem a reasonable fee for nec

essary services performed. TEX.R. CIV. P. 173.6. The

trial court has no discretion to award a guardian ad

litem compensation for services rendered after it has

become clear that no *298 conflict of interest exists,

because such services would no longer be necessary

under Rule 173. See Garcia. 363 S.W.3d at 582

("Only those tasks directly and materially bearing on

the conflict of interest between [the guardian] and [the

ward] regarding division of the settlement were nee-

essary."). We review the amount a guardian ad litem is

awarded as compensation for an abuse of discretion,

which occurs when the trial court rules (1) arbitrarily,

unreasonably, or without regard to guiding legal

principles, or (2) without supporting evidence. Id at

578.

ill In this case, Milutin was not specifically as

signed any duties by the pretrial judge. The context of

his appointment, however, indicates that Milutin was

appointed for the limited purpose of determining and

advising the pretrial judge as to whether there was a

conflict of interest between I.F. and Richardson, and if

so, whether the Ford settlement was in I.F.'s best in

terest. As to the initial conflict-of-interest determina

tion, Richardson testified in her affidavit that she was

not involved in the accident, she was not asserting any

claims in this lawsuit on her own behalf, she was not

an heir or representative of the estate of I.F.'s father,

she had no financial interest in that estate's recovery,

and she understood and agreed that she had no right to

the proceeds of any settlement of the litigation. In

Milutin's response, he primarily took issue with the

regular judge's prior approval of the Firestone settle

ment in 2003 and the amount of attorney's fees

awarded pursuant to the contingency fee agreement in

that settlement. However, those issues have no bearing

on the guardian ad litem's initial role in determining

whether Richardson's interests were adverse to I.F.'s in

the context of the Ford settlement. See TEX.R. CIV. P.

173 cmt. 3. Therefore, the pretrial judge should have

removed Milutin after considering Richardson's affi

davit, the circumstances surrounding Richardson's

representation ofl.F., and Milutin's response because

there was no evidence that Richardson had an interest

adverse to I.F. The court of appeals erred when it held

otherwise. See 350 S.W.3d at 377-78 (concluding that

Richardson's obligation as a parent to pay I.F.'s med

ical expenses presented a conflict of interest that re

quired the appointment of a guardian ad litem under

Rule 173). We hold that a parent's obligation to pro

vide her child with medical care, standing alone, does

not create a conflict of interest within the confines of



16

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

390 S.W.3d 294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

(Cite as: 390 S.W.3d 294)

Rule 173.

Because the pretrial judge should have removed

Milutin at the time he considered Richardson's motion

to reconsider and Milutin's response, we hold that any

services rendered by Milutin after that time were not

necessary and thus not compensable under Rule 173.

See TEX.R. CIV. P. 173.6(a) (providing that a

guardian ad litem may be compensated for necessary

services performed). Therefore, the pretrial judge

abused his discretion when he awarded compensation

for Milutin's non-necessary services, which included

Milutin's time spent defending his appointment in the

mandamus proceeding. See Garcia, 363 S.W.3d at

582 (holding that a trial court abuses its discretion

when it awards compensation for a guardian ad litem's

non-necessary activities). While the evidence .is le

gally insufficient to support the full amount awarded

to Milutin, it is sufficient to show that he necessarily

spent some amount of time initially advising the pre

trial judge as to whether there was a conflict of interest

between Richardson and I.F. Accordingly, we grant

Ford's petition for review and, without hearing oral

argument, reverse the court of appeals' judgment in

part and remand the case to the pretrial judge to de

termine Milutin's *299 fee award, consistent with this

opinion. See TEX.R.APP. P. 59.1.

Tex.,2013.

Ford Motor Co. v. Stewart, Cox, and Hatcher, P.C.

390 S.W.3d294, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 240

END OF DOCUMENT


Page 6


17

ATTACHMENT B


18

CAUSE NO. DV-_______ _

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Defendant( s).

§ § § § § § § § §

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

I. BACKGROUND OF SUIT

A. Guardian ad litem for: Name:

Age:

Date of Birth:

S.S.N.:

B. General nature of occurrence forming basis of suit

II. SETTLEMENT

A. Parties to settlement:

B. This settlement resolves all claims of all patiies: Yes No (If answer is no, attach description of prior settlements or remaining claims)

C. Total cash value of settlement:

REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-PAGE 1


19

D. Amount of settlement for attorneys' fees:

$ _____ _ % -------

E. Amount of settlement for minor (present value):

F. Amount of settlement for next friend:

G. Settlement for next friend is for Minor's medicals and attorneys' fees only: Yes No

(If answer is no, attach description of next friend's claims)

H. All settlement proceeds go to minor and next friend only. Yes No (If answer is no, attach description of other pmiies' claims and their share of settlement)

III. INJURIES TO MINOR

A Description of injuries

B. Description of past medical care

C. Charges for past health care

1. By or under direction of medical doctor $ ________ _

2. Other health care providers $ ________ _

D. Future health care is not presently expected Yes No (If answer is no, then attach description of nature of future care, likelihood of necessity, and cost)

IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINOR

REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM- PAGE 2


20

A. There are no unpaid health care bills. Yes No (If answer is no, attach itemization by amount and provider)

B. There are no unsatisfied health care liens. Yes No (If answer is no, attach itemization by amount and provider)

C. Settlement is for policy limits. Yes No

1. If answer is yes: Defendant has no other readily available assets. Yes No

2. If answer is no: Policy limits are: $ ________ _

D. Settlement proceeds will be paid into registry of the Court Yes No (If answer is no, the attach description of disposition)

V. STATEMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

A. Fees in the requested amount of$ are agreed. __ Yes No (If answer is no, attach number of hours, hourly rate, expenses, amount defendants would approve, and any other information desired for the Court to consider in setting and taxing fees)

B. Representation of Investigation

I certify that in connection with my duties as guardian ad litem I have: 1. Conferred with parents, guardians, next friend, and attorney (as applicable) of ward,

and with the ward if such were appropriate in view of the age and condition of the ward; 2. Reviewed the pleadings and discovery relating to this lawsuit; 3. Reviewed the medical records and findings concerning the ward; 4. If necessary and reasonable, obtained independent medical review; 5. Analyzed the likelihood of success on the merits; 6. Considered the range of expected jury verdicts for comparable injuries in Dallas

County; 7. Investigated the resources of the settling defendants to respond to a judgment,

including potential insurance coverage and individual assets; and 8. Considered all reasonable dispositions of the ward's settlement proceeds in view of

the ward's age and potential future needs, as well as in view of possible risk and return.

C. Recommendation of guardian ad litem

Based on the foregoing investigation, as well as my experience in matters such as this, I represent the following to the Court:

REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-PAGE 3


21

1. I have conducted an investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances and that is a sufficient basis for me to make these representations to the Court;

2. Counsel for the ward has been competent and thorough in the prosecution of the ward's claims in this action and has exercised the degree of care that an attorney of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances in cmmection with that representation;

3. The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, both in terms of the aggregate amount and the allocation among the parties of the settlement proceeds;

4. The disposition of the ward's settlement proceeds is fair and reasonable; and 5. The proposed settlement is in the best interest of the ward.

The guardian ad litem therefore respectfully recommends and requests that the Court approve the proposed settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

Guardian ad Litem

REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM- PAGE 4


22

ATTACHMENT C


23

H.B. No. 1869

AN ACT

relating to contractual subrogation and other recovery rights of

certain insurers and benefit plan issuers.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Title 6, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is

amended by adding Chapter 140 to read as follows:

CHAPTER 140. CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION RIGHTS OF PAYORS OF CERTAIN

BENEFITS

Sec. 140.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Covered individual" means an individual entitled to

benefits described by Section 140.002.

(2) "Payor of benefits" or "payor" means an issuer of a

plan providing benefits described by Section 140.002 that:

(A) pays benefits to or on behalf of a covered

individual as a result of personal injuries to the covered

individual caused by the tortious conduct of a third party; and

(B) has a contractual right of subrogation


24

H.B. No. 1869 health condition, accident, or sickness, a disability benefit plan,

or an employee welfare benefit plan, including an individual,

group, blanket, or franchise insurance policy or insurance

agreement, a group hospital service contract, or an individual or

group evidence of coverage or similar coverage document, including:

(1) an insurance company;

(2) a group hospital service corporation operating under

Chapter 842, Insurance Code;

(3) a fraternal benefit society operating under Chapter

885, Insurance Code;

( 4) a stipulated premium insurance company operating

under Chapter 884, Insurance Code;

(5) a reciprocal exchange operating under Chapter 942,

Insurance Code;

(G) a health maintenance organization operating under

Chapter 843r Insurance Code;

(7) a multiple employer welfare arrangement that holds a

certificate of authority under Chapter 846, Insurance Code; or

(8) an approved nonprofit health corporation that holds

a certificate of authority under Chapter 844, Insurance Code.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 172.014, Local Government Code,


25

H.B. No. 1869 issuer of a plan or coverage under Chapter 1551, 1575, 1579, or

1601, Insurance Code.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law, this chapter applies to

any self-funded issuer of a plan that provides a benefit described

by Subsection (a) .

(e) This chapter applies to any policy, evidence of coverage,

or contract under which a benefit described by Subsection (a) is

provided and:

(1) that is delivered, issued for delivery, or entered

into in this state; or

(2) under which an individual or group in this state is

entitled to benefits.

(f) This chapter does not apply to:

( 1) a workers' compensation insurance policy or any

other source of medical benefits under Title 5, Labor Code;

(2) Medicare;

(3) the Medicaid program under Chapter 32, Human

Resources Code;

( 4) a Medicaid managed care program operated under

Chapter 533,. Government Code;

(5) the state child health plan or any other program


26

Sec. 140.003. CONFLICTS WITH OTHER LAW. H.B. No. 1869

In the event of a

conflict between this chapter and another law, including a rule of

procedure or evidence, this chapter controls to the extent of the

Sec. 140.004. CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION RIGHTS AUTHORIZED. An

issuer of a plan that provides benefits described by Section

140.002 under which the policy or plan issuer may be obligated to

make payments or provide medical or surgical benefits to or on

behalf of a covered individual as a result of a personal injury to

the individual caused by the tortious conduct of a third party may

contract to,be subrogated to and have a right of reimbursement for

payments made or costs of benefits provided from the individual's

recovery for that injury, subject to this chapter.

Sec. 140.005. PAYORS' RECOVERY LIMITED. (a) If an injured

covered individual is entitled by law to seek a recovery from the

third-party tortfeasor for benefits paid or provided by a subrogee

as described by Section 140.004, then all payors are entitled to

recover as provided by Subsection (b) or (c) .

(b) This subsection applies when a covered individual is not

represented by an attorney in obtaining a recovery. All payors'

share under.Subsection (a) of a covered individual's recovery is an


27

H.B. No. 1869 assumed by the payor as a direct result of the tortious conduct of

the third party.

(c) This subsection applies when a covered individual is

share under Subsection (a) of a covered individual's recovery is an

amount that is equal to the lesser of:

(1) one-half of the covered individual's gross recovery

less attorney's fees and procurement costs as provided by Section

140.007; or

(2) the total cost of benefits paid, provided, or

assumed by the payor as a direct result of the tortious conduct of

the third party less attorney's fees and procurement costs as

provided by.Section 140.007.

(d) A common law doctrine that requires an injured party to

be made whole before a subrogee makes a recovery does not apply to

the recovery of a payor under this section.

Sec. 140.006. ATTORNEY'S FEES IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.

Notwithstanding Section 37.009 or any other law, if a declaratory

judgment action is brought under this chapter, the court may not

award costs or attorney's fees to any party in the action.

Sec. 140.007. ATTORNEY'S FEES IN RECOVERY ACTION. (a) Except


28

H.B. No. 1869 determined under an agreement entered into between the attorney and

the payor plus a pro rata share of expenses incurred in connection

with the recovery.

an agreement described by Subsection (a), the court shall award to

the attorney, payable out of the payor's share of the total gross

recovery, a reasonable fee for recovery of the payor's share, not

to exceed ooe-third of the payor's recovery.

(c) If an attorney representing the payor's interest actively

participates in obtaining a recovery, the court shall award and

apportion between the covered individual's and the payor's

attorneys a fee payable out of the payor's subrogation recovery.

In apportioning the award, the court shall consider the benefit

accruing to.the payor as a result of each attorney's service. The

total attorney's fees may not exceed one-third of the payor's

recovery.

Sec. 140.008. FIRST-PARTY RECOVERY. (a) Except as provided

by Subsection (b), a payor of benefits may not pursue a recovery

against a covered individual's first-party recovery.

(b) A payor of benefits may pursue recovery against

uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments


29

H.B. No. 1869 construed to prevent a payor of benefits from waiving, negotiating,

or not pursuing any claim or recovery described by Section 140.004

or 140.005.

SECTION 2. Section 172.015, Local Government Code, is

repealed.

SECTION 3. It is the intent of the legislature that if any

provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word

of this Act or the application thereof to any person or

circumstance is found to be unconstitutional, the provision,

section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word is hereby

declared to be severable and the balance of this Act remains

effective n?twithstanding such unconstitutionality. Moreover, the

legislature declares that it would have passed this Act, and each

provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word

thereof, irrespective of the fact that any provision, section,

subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or any of their

applications, were to be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only to

a contractual right of subrogation in a cause of action that

accrues on or after the effective date of this Act to assert a

contractual right of subrogation or recovery described by Section


30

H.B. No. 1869

President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 1869 was passed by the House on May 6,

2013, by the following vote: Yeas 144, Nays 0, 1 present, not

voting.

Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H. B. No. 18 69 was passed by the Senate on

May 14, 2013, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays 0.

Secretary of the Senate

APPROVED:

Date

Governor


31

ATTACHMENT D


32

NL,t\I .. "',,s·. "'P.-·~ ~ .. . •'

Benefits of Settlement Transfers

About NASP

Overview /Purpose

NASP Member Firms

Case Studies:

Annual or Monthly Payments

Sate of Periodic Payments

Life-Contingent Payments

NASP Btog

Industry News

NASP Board & Staff

Contact Us

Legal & Privacy Policies

Settlement Transfers

NASP Annual Conference

Welcome NASP Members

National Association of Settlement Purchasers

Learn About NASP

Find a NASPMember

Member Finn Directory

Home

NASPAnnual Conference

FAQ

123 LUMPSUM, LLC 1250 E Hallandale Beach Blvd, Penthouse

Patriot Settlement Resources, LLC 2799 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Suite 111 Boca Raton, FL 33431

Hallandale, FL 33009 USA 877-966-8669 www.123lumpsum.com

; Annuity Transfers, Ltd. Boo E. Campbell Road, Suite 335 Richardson, TX 75081 USA 972-952-0260 www.annuitytransfers.com

Client First Settlement Funding, LLC 301 Yamato Road, Suite 3200 Boca Raton, FL 33496 VSA 888-594-1195 www.clientfirstfunding .com

Genex Capital Corporation 73 Green Tree Drive #99 Dover, DE 19904 USA i-8oo-348-3o98 www.genexcapital.com

~mperial Structored Settlements 701 Park of Commerce Blvd, Suite 301 Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA 561-982-3430 ipww.imperial.com

jG Wentworth Funding, LLC 201 King of Prussia Road Randor Townshi:t?, PA 19087 USA 484-434-2287 rpwwjgwentworth.com

~'ilortheastern Capital Funding LLC Director, Legal Department Empire State Building, 59th F1oor New York, NY 10118 USA (J00-931-8109 ivww.necfnet

~'I ovation, LLC 1641 Worthington Road, Suite 410 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 USA \l00-747-6472 www.novationcap.com

USA 561-394-8151 www.patriotsettlement.com

Peachtree Settlement Funding 3301 Quantum Boulevard, 2nd F1oor Boynton Beach, FL 33426 USA 484-434-2350 www.lumpsum.com

Seneca One Finance, luc. 7920 Norfolk Avenue Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20814 USA 240-482-1661 www.senecaone.com

Settlement Capital Corporation 14755 Preston Road, Suite 130 Dallas, TX 75254 USA 972-770-7875 www.setcap.com

Singer Asset Finance Company, L.L.C. 2255 Glades Road Suite n8E Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA (Boo) 670-6777 www.singerasset.com

Stone Street Capital, LLC 7316 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 USA 301-951-8900 www.stonestreet.com

Strategic Capital Corporation 100 Sheppard Ave East, Suite 720 Toronto, AL M2N6N5 CAN 416-849·3484 www.strategiccapital.com

National Association of Settlement Purchasers, 720 Collier Drive, Dixon CA 95620 © 2012 National Association of Settlement Purchasers.

Privacy & Legal Policies Contact Us

For NASP Members

Please Log ln.

USERNAME

PASSWORD

Member News

NASP Welcomes New Member- Genex Capital Corporation - 'I11e National Association of Sh-uctured ...

Settlement Capital Corporation Annom!Ces Appointment of CFO - The addition ofMarkHogard to Settlement ...

Conference Updates

• A Civil Action Lawyer 2012 NASP Conference Keynote Speaker- Jan Schlichtmann represented Sfamilies claiming ...

Industry News

• June 22,2012 Vennont Enacts Settlement Payn1ent Right Transfer Statute Vm•mont Governor Peter Slmmlin signed HB 778 ...


33

Documents

GUARDIAN AD WHAT? - TexasBarCLE · 1996-Leon Jaworski Award for Teaching Excellence, Law Focused Education, Inc. 1995-KRLD NewsRadio 1080 Citizen of the Week, July 5,1995 1995-Honorable