Meredith L. Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP
This text of Meredith L. Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP (Meredith L. Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2021; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2019-CA-1125-MR
MEREDITH L. LAWRENCE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE KATHLEEN S. LAPE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-01620 v.
BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL, L.L.P. APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: MAZE, TAYLOR, AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
MAZE, JUDGE: Appellant, Meredith L. Lawrence, appeals from a judgment of
the Kenton Circuit Court following the Kentucky Supreme Court’s mandate to
reinstate a default judgment in favor of Appellee, Bingham Greenebaum Doll,
L.L.P., and enter the award, including interest and costs, accordingly. For the
following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND
Appellant, Meredith L. Lawrence, was previously represented by
Appellee, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, L.L.P. (Bingham), through its attorneys
(principally, J. Richard Kiefer) in a federal criminal matter involving tax evasion
charges. Bingham’s representation of Lawrence began in 2008 after federal
authorities raided Lawrence’s properties.
Lawrence was indicted in 2011 and fell behind on paying his legal
fees by the end of that year. In June 2012, Lawrence agreed to a promissory note
for the outstanding legal fees already incurred and to be incurred. A jury
subsequently found Lawrence guilty and convicted him on three counts of filing
false tax returns. He was sentenced to twenty-seven months in prison and ordered
to pay $128,253 in restitution to the United States Treasury. Lawrence’s
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Lawrence, 557 Fed.
App’x 520 (6th Cir. 2014).
In 2013, Lawrence filed suit against Bingham, Mr. Kiefer, and others
in Kenton Circuit Court for legal malpractice related to his criminal defense.
Bingham filed an answer denying negligence and counterclaimed for its unpaid
fees and expenses. A default judgment on Bingham’s counterclaim was entered in
2014 after Lawrence failed to respond. This judgment was voided by the circuit
court in 2016, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2017.
-2- Subsequently, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and remanded
the case back to the circuit court with the mandate to reinstate the default judgment
in Bingham’s favor. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP v. Lawrence, 567 S.W.3d
127, 131 (Ky. 2018). The Supreme Court denied Lawrence’s petition for rehearing
in March 2019.
On remand, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate, the circuit
court entered judgment in Bingham’s favor in April 2019 in the amount of
$472,504.86, with interest accruing at 8% per annum from July 2, 2012 until paid
in full. From April through June 2019, Lawrence filed four post-judgment motions
challenging the judgment. The circuit court denied all of these motions in July
2019. Lawrence again appeals. With no payments having been made by Lawrence
to satisfy the judgment, the amount owed to Bingham as of January 1, 2021 was in
excess of $900,000.
Lawrence has filed a litany of post-conviction appeals and petitions,
and “has now exhausted all conventional post-conviction direct and collateral
attacks against his conviction.” Lawrence v. Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll, L.L.P.,
567 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Ky. 2018). Undeterred, Lawrence’s new appeal challenges
the Kenton Circuit Court’s declining to adjudicate his CR1 55.02 and CR 60.02
motions.
1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3- STANDARD OF REVIEW
On remand, a trial court must strictly follow the mandate given by an
appellate court in that case. Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005).
In a subsequent appeal following a retrial after remand, this Court’s role is limited
to whether the trial court properly construed and applied the mandate. Inman v.
Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1982). An appellate court’s review of whether a
trial court properly followed an appellate court’s mandate is de novo. See Univ.
Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Beglin, 432 S.W.3d 175, 178 (Ky. App. 2014).
ANALYSIS
I. CR 55.02 and 60.02
CR 55.02 states, “[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside a
judgment by default in accordance with Rule 60.02.” CR 60.02 states that on
motion a court may, upon such terms as are just, relieve a party from its final
judgment upon the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,
newly discovered evidence, perjury or falsified evidence, fraud, the judgement
being void or otherwise vacated, or other reasons of an extraordinary nature
justifying relief.
None of the justifications for the overturning of a final judgment in
CR 60.02 are present in Lawrence’s case. Furthermore, Lawrence has already
exhausted this route. Lawrence filed a post-judgment motion in the Kenton Circuit
-4- Court on April 12, 2019, seeking relief under CR 59.05, 55.01, 55.02, and 60.02.
He subsequently filed another three motions seeking relief under other related
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court stated that it entered its order
and judgment pursuant to the mandate of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s December
13, 2018, opinion. The court correctly stated that it is bound by the Supreme
Court’s mandate. All of Lawrence’s motions were denied by the circuit court, and
we find no error in the court’s decision.
II. Claim Preclusion
Lawrence’s arguments, which are not entirely clear from his briefs,
appear to claim that the default judgment in favor of Bingham should not have
been granted in 2014. He further argues that the circuit court’s former voiding of
that judgment was correct. The Kentucky Supreme Court, however, reversed the
circuit court’s decision. The Supreme Court specifically held “that the trial court
erred in setting aside the default judgment and that the Court of Appeals similarly
erred in affirming that Order.” Lawrence, 567 S.W.3d at 128. The Supreme Court
“remanded [this case] to the Kenton Circuit Court with directions to reinstate the
default judgment in favor of Bingham.” Id. Because the circuit court followed the
mandate, its decision to reinstate the judgment in favor of Bingham should be
affirmed.
-5- Upon remand, a trial court lacks discretion to do anything different
than what an appellate court orders it to do. See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 450
S.W.3d 707, 711 (Ky. 2014). “It is fundamental that when an issue is finally
determined by an appellate court, the trial court must comply with such
determination. The court to which the case is remanded is without power to
entertain objections or make modifications in the appellate court decision.”
Williamson v. Commonwealth, 767 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Ky. 1989).
It should be noted that the Supreme Court did not remand this case for
further consideration of any legal issue or for the circuit court to hear any
argument. Lawrence also has not argued that the circuit court entered a judgment
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Meredith L. Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-l-lawrence-v-bingham-greenebaum-doll-llp-kyctapp-2021.