Barton-Spencer v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance
Docket Nos. 153655 and 153656
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Plain language of “fixed by the court” meant a court, not jury, determined attorney fees.
Cynthia Barton-Spencer signed a contract to begin working as a life-insurance agent for Farm Bureau Life Insurance in 2000. The contract stated that Barton-Spencer “agree[d] to reimburse [Farm Bureau’s] attorney fees and costs as maybe fixed by the court” if the company prevailed against Barton-Spencer in any contract dispute. The question was whether this provision meant that reasonable attorney fees would be fixed by a court rather than a jury.
In 2013, Farm Bureau fired Barton-Spencer for cause, alleging that she had made misrepresentations to her clients. Barton-Spencer sued Farm Bureau for breach of contract (among other claims). She demanded a jury trial. After some procedural back-and-forth, the jury found for Farm Bureau on the breach-of-contract claims, but found that Barton-Spencer was entitled to commissions that Farm Bureau failed to pay her.
Farm Burea filed a post-judgment motion seeking attorney fees and costs (as provided in the contract). Barton-Spencer argued that the issue of attorney fees should have been submitted to the jury, arguing that she had a constitutional right to a jury trial to determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for attorney fees and costs without addressing Barton-Spencer’s constitutional claim. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the jury and lower-court decisions, but reversed the trial court’s decision to grant contractual attorney fees, because the language was ambiguous and thus could not constitute a waiver of a constitutional right.
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that “fixed by the court” was not ambiguous. As a result, Barton-Spencer needed to show that the contract was invalid or unenforceable to get a jury trial on attorney fees. The Court’s decision was extremely straightforward: it merely enforced the plain language of the contract. As a result, the court did not reach the question of whether a person has a constitutional right to have a jury determine the reasonableness of attorney fees, because contract law applies even if “the contract entails eschewal of constitutional rights.”
Full opinion here.