ÿWPC# .# ”UNŸ %í 0(ów@4[oX~ 0JÖ 0T  0^t 0hÒ 0r: 0|¬ 0†( 0® 1u> 0d³ U> B)U DC~ AQÁ Æ 0DØ 0@ 0D\ AM  D/í B B9 D3V U*‰ ³ v~ÒvÓP˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ´µ¶D·¸¹Uº»¼Ó€Æzƒ=#/%01C3|xÊ01A01CV00006Nolen 94CNeenanRadfordCorleyDonelsonShipleyTenn.AppcoattailingPenningtonDivney#01A01HarwellSandlinCANTRELL2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó!#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌAugust€27,€€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€6'XXdìdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION,€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌBILLIE€WHEELER,€next€of€kinà àà à)Ìand€mother€of€Barry€Cecil€Ford,à àà à)Ìdeceased,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiffà@ à)à àà àÌà@ à)à àAppeal€No.€01A01„9701„CV00006Ìà@ à)ÌJULIA€ROBERTS,€next€of€kin€andà@ à)Ìmother€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen,à àà à)Ìdeceased,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Co.€Circuit€No.Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà à)à à94C„1384€&€94C„2726̜ـ!ÙßR€%+A1-j|þ‘` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLYLE€H.€BURLEY,à àà àà àà à)ÌCENTRAL€TRANSPORT,à àINC.,€à àà à)Ìand€WHITE€CARTAGE€CO.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendantsà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMILTON€ELLIS€NOLEN,€next€of€kinà à)Ìand€father€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen,à àà à)Ìdeceased,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.€à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLYLE€H.€BURLEY,à àà àà àà à)ÌCENTRAL€TRANSPORT,à àINC.,€à àà à)Ìand€WHITE€CARTAGE€CO.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendants.à àà àà à)ó óÌà àÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€XÔÌÌà àó óóóThe€only€issue€before€the€Court€on€this€appeal€involves€the€proper€distribution€of€a€ÌÌportion€of€attorneyððs€fees€emanating€from€an€agreed€settlement.ÌÌÌÌà àJulia€Roberts€and€Milton€Nolen€were€husband€and€wife€prior€to€their€Mississippi€ÌÌdivorce€in€1984.€Their€adult€son,€Dustin€Ross€Nolen€along€with€Barry€Cecil€Ford€were€ÌÌkilled€April€23,€1994€when€the€motorcycle,€operated€by€Nolen€with€Ford€as€a€passenger,€ÌÌcollided€with€a€trailer€truck,€owned€and€operated€by€the€Defendants,€Central€Transport€ÌÌInc.,€and€Lyle€H.€Burley.ÌÌÓÓ€à àBilly€Wheeler,€mother€and€next€of€kin€of€Barry€Cecil€Ford€and€Julia€Roberts,€Ìmother€and€next€of€kin€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen,€both€employed€the€Nashville€firm€of€FlynnÏand€Neenan€to€represent€them€in€wrongful€death€actions.€€Charles€Patrick€Flynn€andÏMichael€K.€Radford€undertook€the€representation€of€both€Wheeler€and€Roberts€and€on€MayÏ4,€1994€filed€a€joint€complaint€against€the€Defendants€alleging€negligence€and€seekingÏextraordinary€relief€in€order€to€keep€the€truck,€involved€in€the€accident,€available€forÏinvestigation.ÌÓÓÌÌà àFlynn€and€Neenan€accepted€the€Barry€Cecil€Ford€and€Dustin€Ross€Nolen€cases€on€ÌÌa€one„€third€(ð@ð)€contingent€fee€contract.€€ÌÌÌÌà àThe€natural€father€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen€to€wit,€Plaintiff,€Milton€Ellis€Nolen,€ÌÌemployed€William€B.€Bruce€and€Nancy€K.€Corley€of€the€Nashville€Bar€on€a€one„third€(ð@ð)€ÌÌcontingency€fee€contract€and€on€August€23,€1994,€these€attorneys€filed€on€behalf€of€Milton€ÌÌEllis€Nolen€a€wrongful€death€case€against€Central€Transport€Inc,€and€Lyle€R.€Burley€ÌÌasserting€that€Milton€Ellis€Nolen€was€next€of€kin€within€the€meaning€of€T.C.A.€ðð20„5„106€ÌÌand€that€the€cause€of€action€for€the€death€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen€survived€to€him.ÌÌÌÌà àTo€put€it€mildly,€the€relationship€between€Julia€Roberts€and€Milton€Ellis€Nolen€was€ÌÌsomewhat€strained.€€Their€respective€counsel€became€afflicted€with€the€same€malady€and€ÌÌthe€result€was€predictable.ÌÌÌÌà àOn€October€17,€1994,€an€Order€was€filed€in€the€Probate€Court€of€Davidson€ÌÌCounty,€reflecting€a€July€27,€1994€hearing€wherein€Julia€Roberts€was€named€as€ÌÌAdministrator€of€the€Estate€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen.€€ÌÌÌÌà àAfter€considerable€discovery,€marked€by€much€unpleasantness,€the€parties€on€June€ÌÌ23,€1995€reached€a€settlement€agreement€whereby€the€Defendants€paid€Five€Hundred€ÌÌThousand€€($500,000)€Dollars€to€settle€the€Ford€case€and€Four€Hundred€Thousand€ÌÌ($400,000)€Dollars€to€settle€the€Nolen€case.€€There€was€no€problem€relative€to€the€FordÏcase€and€little€problem€relative€to€the€division€after€attorneys€fees€of€the€Nolen€recovery,€ÌÌbut€no€agreement€could€be€reached€as€to€the€division€of€the€One€Hundred€Thirty„three€ÌÌThousand€Three€Hundred€Thirty„three€and€thirty„three€cents€($133,333.33)€Dollars€in€ÌÌattorneys€fees€in€the€Nolen€ÌÌcase.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€Defendants€thus€interpleaded€the€Four€Hundred€Thousand€($400,000.00)€ÌÌDollars€settlement€of€the€Nolen€case€and€by€Order€entered€August€23,€1995,€the€Clerk€of€ÌÌthe€Court€distributed€Two€Hundred€Thousand€($200,000)€Dollars€of€the€Nolen€settlement€ÌÌto€Julia€Roberts€and€her€attorney€Charles€Patrick€Flynn.€€The€Clerk€also€distributed€One€ÌÌHundred€Fifty€Thousand€($150,000)€Dollars€of€the€Nolen€settlement€to€Milton€Ellis€Nolen€ÌÌand€his€attorneys€William€B.€Bruce€and€Nancy€K.€Corley.€€The€balance€of€Fifty€Thousand€ÌÌ($50,000))€Dollars€was€held€by€the€Clerk€pending€resolution€of€the€issues€related€to€ÌÌlitigation€expenses,€past€due€child€support€and€proper€distribution€of€remaining€attorneys€ÌÌfees.ÌÌÌÌà àThe€parties€were€able€to€agree€on€all€issues€except€for€the€distribution€of€attorneys€ÌÌfees€which€was€decided€by€the€Trial€Court€in€an€Order€of€June€10,€1996€holding€in€part€as€ÌÌfollows:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌð ð1.à àThe€total€recovery€in€the€Nolen€case€by€way€of€settlement€wasÏ$400,000.00€and€the€appropriate€fee€attributable€to€this€recovery,€whichÏshould€be€distributed€between€the€attorneys€for€the€Plaintiffs,€isÏ$133,333.33.€€Counsel€for€the€Plaintiff,€Milton€Nolen,€has€thus€far€receivedÏa€fee€of€$33,333.33.€€Counsel€for€the€Plaintiff,€Julia€Roberts,€has€thus€farÏreceived€a€fee€of€$66,666.66.ÌÌ2.à àThere€has€been€lots€of€acrimony€between€the€parties,€Julia€RobertsÏand€Milton€Nolen,€in€this€case.€€The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€and€finds€that€itÏwas€necessary€for€the€Plaintiff,€Milton€Nolen,€to€be€represented€byÏindependent€counsel€in€this€case.€€The€Court€finds,€however,€that€despiteÏthe€Plaintiff,€Milton€Nolenððs€independent€representation,€counsel€for€theÏPlaintiff,€Julia€Roberts,€did€the€lionððs€share€of€the€work€in€this€case€andÏperformed€that€work€in€a€very€short€time.€€The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏcounsel€for€the€Plaintiff,€Julia€Roberts,€performed€two„thirds€of€the€workÏinvolved€in€prosecuting€this€case€and€counsel€for€the€Plaintiff,€MiltonÏNolen,€performed€on„third€of€the€work€involved€in€this€prosecuting€case.ÌÌ2.€(sic)à àThe€Court€is€of€the€opinion€and€finds€that€counsel€for€the€Plaintiff,ÏJulia€Roberts,€should€receive€two„thirds€of€the€total€fee€in€this€case€orÏ$88,888.88€based€upon€their€performance€of€two„thirds€of€the€work€in€thisÏcase.€€The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€and€finds€that€counsel€for€the€Plaintiff,ÏMilton€Nolen,€should€receive€one„third€of€the€total€fee€in€this€case€orÏ$44,444.44€based€upon€their€performance€of€one„third€of€the€work€involvedÏin€this€case.€€Amounts€already€received€by€counsel€in€the€Nolen€case€as€feesÏshould€be€credited€toward€these€amounts.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌÓÓà àMilton€Ellis€Nolen€appeals€from€this€judgement€of€the€Trial€Court.ÌÌÌÌà àOn€appeal€the€appellant€asserts:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌð ð1.à àThe€trial€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€by€applying€the€ððfund€doctrineðð€toÏthe€division€of€attorney€fees,€since€this€case€is€not€a€Class€Action.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€exhibits€an€unfortunate€flaw€in€the€statutory€ð ðwrongful€deathðð€law€inÏTennessee.ÌÌà àUntil€the€enactment€of€Chapter€17€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1851,€Tennessee€followedÏthe€common€law€rule€that€every€right€of€action€for€personal€injury€died€with€the€demise€ofÏthe€injured€person.€€The€1851€Act€was€essentially€a€counter€part€of€what€is€familiarityÏknown€as€ð ðLord€Campbellððs€Actðð€passed€by€the€British€Parliament€in€1846.€€ÌÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° Òà àð ðIt€manifestly€abrogates€the€common€law€rule€just€mentioned,€andÏkeeps€alive€the€deceased€persons€right€of€action€in€every€instance€in€whichÏhe€leaves€surviving€a€widow€or€child€or€next€of€kin.ððÌÌòòEast€Tennessee€V€&€G€Railway€Co.€Lillyóó€190€Tenn.€563€and€18€S.W.Ï243,244€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àThe€present€version€of€ð ðLord€Campbellððs€Actðð€in€Tennessee€is€reflected€inÏòòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó€ðð20„5„106.€€Providing:€ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àð ð(a)€€The€right€of€action€which€a€person,€who€dies€from€injuriesÏreceived€from€another,€or€whose€death€is€caused€by€the€wrongful€act,Ïomission,€or€killing€by€another,€would€have€had€against€the€wrongdoer,€inÏcase€death€had€not€ensued,€shall€not€abate€or€be€extinguished€by€theÏperson's€death€but€shall€pass€to€the€person's€surviving€spouse€and,€in€caseÏthere€is€no€surviving€spouse,€to€the€person's€children€or€next€of€kin;€.€.€.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÌÌà àThe€proper€construction€of€this€section€of€the€Code€has€long€been€settled€in€ÌÌTennessee.ÌÌÌÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° Òà àð ðThis€section€does€not€create€a€new€cause€of€action€for€the€plaintiffs,Ïbut€simply€preservesðð€.€.€.(the€decedentððs)€.€.€.€ð ðright€of€action€which€wouldÏotherwise€be€extinguished€by€her€death.€(Citations€omitted)€€€The€right€ofÏaction€for€wrongful€death€is€that€which€the€deceased€would€have€possessedÏhad€she€lived,€and€any€recovery€is€in€the€right€of€the€deceased.ðð€ÌÌà àà àòòRogers€v.€Donelson„Hermitage€Chamber€of€Commerceóó€Ìà àà à807€S.W.2d.€242€(Tenn.€€App.€1990)ÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àThe€problem€immediately€becomes€self„evident.€€The€decedent€is€a€single€personÏwith€a€cause€of€action€for€injuries€inflicted€by€the€wrong„doer€against€him.€€His€cause€ofÍaction€is€single,€entire€and€indivisible.€€When€he€dies€from€these€injuries€this€single,€entireÏand€indivisible€cause€of€action€does€not€abate,€but€passes€first€to€his€surviving€spouse.€ÏThis€presents€no€problem€if€he€has€a€surviving€spouse.€€It€presents€no€problem,€if€he€isÏsurvived€by€a€single€child.€€ÌÌà àWhat€we€have€at€bar€however,€is€a€twenty„four€(24)€year€old€decedent€with€noÏsurviving€spouse€and€no€surviving€children.€€His€ð ðnext€of€kinðð€are€his€mother€and€hisÏfather.€€They€thus,€under€the€statute,€take€jointly€this€single,€entire€and€indivisible€cause€ofÏaction,€preserved€for€the€deceased€by€T.C.A.€ðð20„5„106.€€Unfortunately,€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€surviving€father€and€mother€is€„„to€be€charitable„„something€less€than€amicable.ÌÌà àImmediately€following€the€death€of€Dustin€Ross€Nolen,€his€mother,€Julia€RobertsÏemployed€on€a€one„third€(ð@ð)€contingent€fee€contract,€Charles€Patrick€Flynn€and€MichaelÏK.€Radford€to€pursue€the€wrongful€death€action€under€the€statute.ÌÌà àSometime€later,€Milton€Ellis€Nolen,€father€of€the€decedent€Dustin€Ross€NolenÏemployed€William€R.€Bruce€and€Nancy€K.€Corley€to€pursue€the€same€wrongful€death€caseÏon€his€behalf€as€equal€next€of€kin.€€This€contract€of€employment€was€also€a€one„third€(ð@ð)Ïcontingent€fee€contract.ÌÌÌà àFrom€the€beginning,€all€parties€acknowledged€that€the€mother€and€father€wouldÏshare€equally€the€net€proceeds€from€any€settlement€or€verdict€in€the€case.ÌÌà àThe€only€testimonial€record€before€this€Court€is€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings€ofÏJune€5,€1996€before€Judge€Shipley,€which€is€limited€to€the€testimony€of€Charles€PatrickÍFlynn€and€Nancy€Corley.€€Everything€else€in€this€testimonial€transcript€is€argument€ofÏcounsel€over€the€division€of€the€attorneys€fees€all€other€matters€having€been€settled.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€who€had€presided€over€all€proceedings€in€the€case€below€found€as€aÏfact€that€Flynn€and€Radford€had€done€ð ðthe€lionððs€shareððof€the€work€throughout€this€caseÏand€the€record€before€this€Court€certainly€supports€such€a€finding.ÌÌà àFlynn€and€Radford€filed€the€suit€quickly,€took€Court€action€to€compel€theÏDefendants€to€preserve€the€truck€in€its€original€condition,€hired€expert€witnesses€andÏadvanced€all€the€money€out€pocket.ÌÌà àAll€parties€agreed€that€the€Four€Hundred€Thousand€($400,000)€Dollars€settlementÏwas€an€advantageous€one.€€If€indeed€the€parties€had€settled€everything€at€that€time€on€theÏbasis€of€the€respective€contingent€fee€contracts,€Roberts€would€have€received€Two€HundredÏThousand€($200,000)€less€Sixty„six€Thousand€Six€Hundred€Sixty„six€Dollars€and€sixty„sixÏcents€($66,666.66)€attorneys€fees€payable€to€Flynn€and€Radford€and€Nolen€would€haveÏreceived€Two€Hundred€Thousand€($200,000)€less€Sixty„six€Thousand€Six€Hundred€Sixty„six€Dollars€and€sixty„six€cents.($66,666.66)€attorneys€fees€payable€to€Bruce€and€Corley€asÏattorneys€fees.€€This€was€not€however€the€settlement.€€The€Defendants€interpleaded€theÏFour€Hundred€Thousand€($400,000)€Dollars€and€the€Clerk€disbursed€Two€HundredÏThousand€($200,000)€Dollars€to€Mrs.€Roberts€from€which€Sixty„six€Thousand€SixÏHundred€Sixty„six€Dollars€and€sixty„six€cents.($66,666.66)€was€paid€to€Flynn€andÏRadford€as€contingent€attorneys€fees.€€One€Hundred€Fifty€Thousand€($150,000)€DollarsÏwas€paid€from€the€Court€to€Nolen€with€Thirty„three€Thousand€Three€Hundred€Thirty„threeÏDollars€and€thirty„three€cents€($33,333.33)€being€paid€to€Bruce€and€Corley€as€attorneyÏfees.€€The€other€Fifty€Thousand€($50,000)€Dollars€was€left€for€the€Trial€Court€to€settle€andÍthe€hearing€of€June€5,€1996€was€for€the€purpose€of€giving€the€Trial€Court€a€testimonialÏbasis€for€making€some€kind€of€a€decision.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€this€hearing€,€the€Trial€Court€applied€equitable€principles€parallelingÏthe€ð ðcommon€fund€doctrineðð€articulated€in€òòHobson€v.€First€State€Bankóó€801€S.W.€2d€807Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€ð ð.€.€.€as€a€matter€of€law€.€.€.ðð€by€applyingÏthe€common€fund€doctrine€in€this€case,€since€it€does€not€involve€a€class€action.ÌÌà àThis€question€is€answered€clearly€in€€òòHobson€v.€First€State€Bankóó€801€S.W.€2d€807Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990)€wherein€the€ð ðcommon€fund€doctrineðð€is€applied€in€Tennessee€basedÏprimarily€œon›€òòVincent€v.€Hughes€Air€West,€Inc.,óó€557€F.2d€759€(9th€Cir.€1977),€a€case€inÏwhich€the€9th€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€held€specifically€that€Vincent€was€not€a€class€action.€ÏThe€fact€that€a€ð ðgeneral€classðð€of€ð ðnext€of€kinðð€exists€does€œnot€make›€a€ð ðclass€actionðð€withinÏthe€meaning€of€Rule€23€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ÌÌà àThus,€in€the€case€at€bar€the€ð ðcommon€fundðð€doctrine€and€its€applicability€presentÏfactual€issues€for€determination€rather€than€an€issue€of€law.€€The€factual€record€before€thisÏCourt€is€quite€limited€in€comparison€to€the€factual€record€that€was€before€the€Trial€Judge.€€ÌÌà àIn€discussing€the€general€rule,€that€when€third€parties€„„€in€this€case,€the€AppellantÏNolen€„„€hire€their€own€attorneys€and€appear€in€the€litigation€the€original€claimant€cannotÏshift€to€them€his€attorneys€fees,€the€Court€in€Hobson€applied€the€exception€to€this€generalÏrule,€laid€out€in€Vincent€observing:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° Òà àð ð€ððThe€purpose€of€this€exception€is€of€course€identical€to€the€purposeÏof€the€broader€common€fund€doctrine€itself:€avoidance€of€unjust€enrichment,Ïor€as€it€has€been€referred€to€in€this€litigation,€ð ðcoattailing.ðð€ðð€ððÌÌà àà àà àòòà àà àHobson€v.€First€œS`à àtate›€Bankóó€Ìà àà àà àà àà à801€S.W.€2d€807€(Tenn.€App.€1990)ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÌà àœIn›€close€analogy€to€the€case€at€bar€is€in€re:€Matter€of€Estate€of€Jeffrey€Lee€Stout,Ï#01A01„9308„CH„00360,€released€by€the€Western€Section€Court€of€Appeals€on€July€29,Ï1994.€€The€òòStoutóó€case€œis€one›€in€which€the€adult€son€of€the€parties€had€been€killed€leaving€noÏchildren€and€only€his€parents€as€next€of€kin.€€The€parties€were€divorced€and€the€wifeÏqualified€as€Administrator€of€the€Estate€and€employed€Neal€and€Harwell€in€the€wrongfulÏdeath€action.€€They€did€everything€and€settled€the€case€for€Five€Hundred€Sixty€ThousandÏ($560,000)€Dollars,€under€a€one„third€(1/3)€contingency€fee€contract.€€The€father€of€theÏdecedent,€John€I.€Sandlin€attempted€to€intervene€and€objected€to€attorneys€fees€being€paidÏto€Neal€and€Harwell€out€of€his€one„half€(ðð)€of€the€net€proceeds.ÌHis€own€attorney€sought€to€share€the€attorney€fee,€although€he€had€done€little€or€no€work.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€applied€òòHobsonóó€€€and€denied€his€application.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€no€question€is€made€but€that€Bruce€and€Corley€performedÏservices,€not€the€least€of€which,€was€to€convince€their€client€that€the€settlement€was€in€theÏbest€interest€of€everyone.€€The€principle€set€forth€in€òòHobsonóó€and€òòStout,€óóhowever,€is€the€bestÏsolution€to€the€problem€€of€a€single,€entire€and€indivisible€cause€of€action€being€madeÏdivisible€by€multiple€successions€to€the€cause€of€action€as€œsuccessors€are€established›€byÏT.C.A.€20„5„106.€€The€remedy€fashioned€by€the€Trial€Judge€in€dividing€the€attorneys€fees,Ïtwo„thirds€(ðAð)€to€Flynn€and€Radford€and€one„third€(ð@ð)€to€Bruce€and€Corley,€not€onlyÏappears€fair€and€equitable€to€this€Court,€but€is€well€within€the€discretion€vested€in€the€TrialÏJudge.ÌÌà àThe€judgement€below€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remanded€for€such€furtherÏproceedings€as€conform€to€this€Opinion.̛̜ÌÌÌÌà àCost€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant.ÌÌò òÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_____________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,ÌPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEó óÌÌ€Ìà à