Williams, Love, O'Leary, & Powers, PC v. Brann (In Re Williams, Love, O'Leary, & Powers, PC) , 588 F. App'x 559 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WILLIAMS, LOVE, O’LEARY, & No. 12-36064
POWERS, PC,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00563-AA
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAMS, LOVE, O’LEARY, &
POWERS, PC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
STERLING BANK,
Intervenor-Plaintiff -
Appellee,
v.
HEATHER A. BRANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
In re: WILLIAMS, LOVE, O’LEARY, & No. 13-35914
POWERS, PC,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02049-AA
Debtor,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
HEATHER ANN BRANN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAMS, LOVE, O’LEARY, &
POWERS, PC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 21, 2014
Portland, Oregon
Before: CLIFTON, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Heather Brann appeals from the district court’s holding that her claim
against Williams, Love, O’Leary, & Powers, P.C. (WLOP) is not secured by an
attorney’s lien, making her an unsecured creditor. Brann also appeals from the
district court’s holding that the federal judgment rate is appropriate for the post-
petition interest owed to her. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and
procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the
issues raised on appeal. We affirm.
The Oregon attorney’s lien statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 87.445, grants an
attorney a lien “upon actions, suits and proceedings” and “judgments, orders and
awards entered therein in the client’s favor and the proceeds thereof to the extent of
fees and compensation specially agreed upon with the client, or if there is no
agreement, for the reasonable value of the services of the attorney.” This statute
creates an attorney’s lien upon the action that was pursued by the attorney for the
client. Potter v. Schlesser Co., Inc., 335 Or. 209, 213, 215 (2003). However, the
attorney’s lien only grants attorneys the same right “to enforce their liens as their
clients have for the amount due thereon to them.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 87.480.
Because the clients represented by WLOP and Brann could not take action against
WLOP for payment due on the action, Brann’s action against WLOP is not secured
by an attorney’s lien, and she is an unsecured creditor.
As an unsecured creditor, Brann is entitled to post-petition interest “at the
legal rate.” 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(5); see In re Cardelucci, 285 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th
Cir. 2002). We have already held that “the legal rate” means the federal judgment
rate. In re Cardelucci, 285 F.3d at 1233. Thus, Brann’s post-petition interest
should be calculated using the federal judgment interest rate.
Appellant to pay costs.
AFFIRMED
2