Law firm’s attorney lien claim on foreclosure surplus funds falls flat
Ralis had done legal work for North Side on matters unrelated to the foreclosure. After the judgment was already entered, on January 26, 2025, the firm filed an “Attorney’s Intention to Hold Lien,” claiming North Side owed approximately $110,000 in unpaid fees.
The property sold at sheriff’s sale in August 2025 for roughly $1.23 million. Once the mortgage, interest, and sale expenses were satisfied, $25,373.31 remained. Two parties stepped up: Ralis, citing its attorney lien, and the mortgagee, who claimed entitlement through a 2023 Joint-Venture Agreement with North Side that allegedly gave him certain net profits from the sale.
The trial court awarded the surplus to the mortgagee. Ralis appealed.
The statutory question was simple. Indiana Code section 33-43-4-1 allows a lawyer to hold a lien on “a judgment rendered in favor of a person employing the attorney to obtain the judgment.” The appeals court read that at face value. The foreclosure judgment was against North Side, not in its favor. No favorable judgment, no lien.
As the trial court had put it, Ralis was asserting “a lien on [the mortgagee’s] judgment” – not on anything recovered for its own client.
