LAMB v. BURTON (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In January of 2024, Tracie Burton hired Carl Lamb to represent her in her attempt to secure legal guardianship of her husband Jack Burton. After engaging Lamb's legal services, Tracie allowed him to remove a number of firearms from the marital residence due to safety concerns. Tracie eventually was made permanent guardian of Jack. Lamb withdrew from the case in October of 2024, and he later requested approximately $18,000.00 in additional attorney's fees from Tracie and an attorney lien on the firearms, which by that time had been transferred to the Lawrence County Sheriff. The trial court denied these requests. Lamb contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his requests for additional attorney's fees and for an attorney lien on the firearms. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 29, 2023, Tracie petitioned for an order for protection against Jack, alleging that he had committed domestic violence against her on December 24, having put her in a chokehold. Tracie alleged that Jack was suffering from dementia, had brandished a knife at law enforcement, and had made numerous death threats. On January 3, 2024, the Lawrence Circuit Court entered an ex parte order for protection, which, inter alia, excluded Jack from the couple's marital residence.

[3] Meanwhile, on January 1, 2024, Tracie, by this time represented by Lamb, had petitioned to be appointed guardian of Jack. The same day, Lamb came to the marital residence to collect several of Jack's firearms that Tracie wanted “out of the house because [she] did not know who Jack was going to be when and if he returned.” Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Lamb took the firearms into his custody, and, while the pair apparently discussed the possible liquidation of the firearms to cover Lamb's attorney's fees, no written agreement to that effect was executed.

[4] On January 5, 2024, the trial court appointed Tracie temporary guardian of Jack. On February 16, 2024, the trial court limited the scope of Tracie's authority to making medical decisions for Jack. On April 1, 2024, the trial court entered an order appointing Tracie permanent guardian over the estate and person of Jack. On August 15, 2024, the trial court, unaware of the firearms that were then in Lamb's custody, ordered the Lawrence County Sheriff to “immediately retrieve all guns from [Tracie's residence]. Said guns shall be kept in safe keeping until further order of the Court.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 28.

[5] On October 8, 2024, Tracie, in her capacity as Jack's guardian, filed a status report, in which she indicated that “[e]arlier in the calendar year, in order to cover legal fees and costs, it became necessary for me to liquidate some of the marital firearms, along with a small amount of ammunition, to afford attorney's fees.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 26. At a hearing on October 11, 2024, the trial court, inter alia, granted Lamb's motion to withdraw as Tracie's attorney, granted Jack's motion for the return of personal property, ordered Lamb to deliver all of Jack's firearms in his possession to the Lawrence County Sheriff, and denied Lamb's request for a lien on the firearms or to retain them. The trial court's basis for its rulings was that the terms of Tracie's guardianship only permitted her to make decisions related to Jack's medical care.

[6] On April 7, 2025, Lamb moved to enforce an attorney lien, and, on May 21, 2025, moved the trial court to approve an award of attorney's fees. On June 18, 2025, the trial court denied both of Lamb's motions. The trial court denied Lamb's motion to enforce an attorney lien on the basis that the initial transfer of the firearms had been beyond Tracie's authority as Jack's guardian and without court approval. The trial court denied Lamb's request for attorney's fees, finding the following:

20. The guardianship estate exists for the benefit of the protected person. The actions taken by Attorney Lamb and the Guardian in this matter created a situation that is impossible for the Court to resolve with absolute certainty for either party.

21. The Court finds that Mr. Lamb has received $5,185.00 in fees in this matter.

22. The Court finds that the fees of $5,185.00 charged by Mr. Lamb are reasonable.

23. Considering the complexity of this matter, the time required, and the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation, the Court finds that the additional request for $17,987.25 in attorney fees is unreasonable.

24. The Court finds that no additional fees are owed to Attorney Lamb by the guardianship estate.

25. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Lamb admitted he failed to obtain prior approval from the Court for attorney fees. Doing so could have prevented most, if not all, of the issues currently before the Court.

Order p. 3 (record citation omitted).

Discussion and Decision

[7] We note that Tracie has not filed a brief. When an appellee has not filed a brief, “we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument on the appellee's behalf.” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). “[W]e will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Id. Prima facie error is error “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (citation omitted). With this in mind, we turn to Lamb's claims.

[8] Lamb contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for additional attorney's fees.

Indiana Code Section 29-3-9-9(a) provides: “Whenever a guardian is appointed for an incapacitated person or minor, the guardian shall pay all expenses of the proceeding, including reasonable medical, professional, and attorney's fees, out of the property of the protected person.” We review the trial court's award of attorney fees [․] for an abuse of discretion. See I.C. § 29-3-2-4; In re Wickersham, 594 N.E.2d 498, 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). An abuse of discretion occurs only if the judgment is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, together with any reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Wickersham, 594 N.E.2d at 501. We have recognized that the trial judge possesses personal expertise that he or she may use when determining reasonable attorney fees. Id.

In re Guardianship of Hickman, 811 N.E.2d 843, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “When reviewing the trial court's findings and judgment [regarding a request for attorney's fees from a guardianship estate], we consider only the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party, and we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness credibility.” Wickersham, 594 N.E.2d at 501.

[9] Here, the trial court concluded, after evaluating the testimony and other evidence, that the $5,185.00 Tracie had already paid Lamb for his work on behalf of the guardianship was reasonable. Lamb contends that uncontradicted evidence establishes that the approximately $18,000.00 in additional attorney's fees he seeks was for work that was both necessary and beneficial to the guardianship. First and foremost, even if Lamb is correct that his evidence is uncontradicted, the trial court was under no obligation to credit any of it. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004) (“As a general rule, factfinders are not required to believe a witness's testimony even when it is uncontradicted.”). In any event, Lamb has not provided us with detailed billing records,¹ leaving us with no way to evaluate his claim that his legal work was done to further the interests of the guardianship, as opposed to securing for himself possession of the firearms and/or his fee. Ultimately, Lamb's argument on appeal amounts to nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Wickersham, 594 N.E.2d at 501. Keeping in mind the deference we show to trial courts on such matters, see Hickman, 811 N.E.2d at 851, we conclude that Lamb has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for additional attorney's fees.²

[10] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While Lamb did, apparently, admit the billing records below and cites to pages forty-five through sixty-one of his appendix for them, the substantive portion of his filed appendix only goes to page forty-three.

2.   Because Lamb has failed to establish that he is entitled to additional fees, there is no basis for the issuance of an attorney lien on Jack's firearms.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.