Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneypleamotionsummary judgmentwillcorporationfelonymisdemeanordefense attorneymotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyermotionsummary judgmentwillcorporationdefense attorneymotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10679522
View Case »
Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1537, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. 1393, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 740
View Case »
Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., 212 F.Supp.3d 829
View Case »
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 53 USLW 4101
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Krueger, 176 Mich.App. 241, 438 N.W.2d 898
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mauzy v. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 611127

Facts

William Mauzy, a criminal defense attorney, represented Robert Miller, the general manager of Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., in a criminal case involving allegations of fraudulent reporting related to waste disposal. Miller was charged with multiple felony counts but ultimately pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts. Mauzy had a fee agreement with Miller, which included an assignment of indemnification rights to seek recovery of attorney fees from the corporation. The defendant contested the enforceability of this assignment, claiming it lacked consideration and violated public policy.

Plaintiff William Mauzy is a criminal defense attorney who represented an individual named Robert Miller in regards to a state tax investigation commenced by the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General and the Dakota County Attorney in 1995.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the assignment of indemnification rights from Miller to Mauzy was enforceable and whether EKS was obligated to indemnify Miller for the attorney fees incurred in his defense.

Defendant contends that the assignment is void for lack of consideration where the attorney had a pre-existing duty to the client under their initial fee agreement, and for public policy reasons where the assignment is actually a contingent fee agreement and also resulted in an improper business transaction between a lawyer and client.

Rule

Under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851(1), indemnification of defense attorney fees incurred by a corporate officer is mandatory if the officer was a party in the action because of their role as an officer or director of the corporation and was successful on the merits.

Plaintiff Mauzy's motion for summary judgment under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851(1) is based upon the relatively straightforward position that indemnification of defense attorney fees incurred by a corporate officer is mandatory if the officer was a party in the action because he was an officer or director of the corporation.

Analysis

The court analyzed the enforceability of the assignment and determined that EKS lacked standing to challenge it. It found that Miller was indeed a corporate officer and had been successful in defending against the majority of the charges. The court concluded that the assignment was valid and that Mauzy was entitled to indemnification for the fees incurred, applying the statutory provisions regarding mandatory indemnification.

The court analyzed the enforceability of the assignment and determined that EKS lacked standing to challenge it. It found that Miller was indeed a corporate officer and had been successful in defending against the majority of the charges.

Conclusion

The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Mauzy, awarding him indemnification in the amount of $180,795.31, while denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Mauzy, awarding him indemnification in the amount of $180,795.31.

Who won?

William Mauzy prevailed in the case because the court found that he had a valid assignment of indemnification rights and that EKS was obligated to indemnify Miller for the attorney fees incurred.

Plaintiff Mauzy prevailed in the case because the court found that he had a valid assignment of indemnification rights and that EKS was obligated to indemnify Miller for the attorney fees incurred.

You must be