## Facts

- Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC and related parties (Fitzpatrick) prevailed in litigation against the City of Oronoco and obtained a money judgment; O’Brien & Wolf, L.L.P. (O’Brien) represented Fitzpatrick beginning October 22, 2010.
- Whitney National Bank obtained a Florida judgment against Fitzpatrick in 2008, docketed it in Minnesota in 2009, and served Oronoco with a garnishment summons on June 18, 2014 seeking funds owed to Fitzpatrick.
- On June 30, 2014, O’Brien asserted an attorney’s lien on Fitzpatrick’s cause of action and recovery in the Oronoco litigation.
- Oronoco disclosed the amount due on the judgment and, facing competing claims, deposited the judgment proceeds with the district court.
- The district court ruled that Whitney’s garnishment lien had priority because O’Brien had not filed notice of its attorney’s lien and therefore had not perfected it against Whitney.

## Issues

1. Whether a cause-of-action attorney’s lien under Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 1(a) requires notice filing to take priority over a third party’s previously served garnishment lien.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
- It held that O’Brien’s lien was a cause-of-action attorney’s lien that attached based on the litigation and representation, not a lien on a judgment or specific property.
- Because the lien was not a judgment lien or a lien on particular money or property involved in the action, the statute’s filing/recording clause in subd. 1(a)(2) did not apply.
- O’Brien’s attorney’s lien therefore had priority over Whitney’s later garnishment lien despite the absence of filed notice.

## Legal Principles

- Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 1(a) distinguishes between (1) a cause-of-action attorney’s lien that arises with commencement of the action (or later retention) and attaches to the cause of action and recovery, and (2) a property-interest lien on a judgment or specific money or property involved in or affected by the action.
- Filing/recording requirements in subd. 1(a)(2) apply to liens on a judgment or on particular money or property, not to a cause-of-action attorney’s lien.
- A cause-of-action attorney’s lien may take priority over later-arising third-party collection devices (including garnishment) based on statutory attachment timing, without notice filing as a condition of priority.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that O’Brien’s claim was a cause-of-action attorney’s lien that attached without any statutory notice-filing requirement, and it therefore took priority over Whitney’s later garnishment of the same judgment proceeds.


City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC, 869 N.W.2d 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)