The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued a significant ruling in the case of the Estate of Doreen Jo Carey v. Terry R. Spencer and TR Spencer & Associates, Inc., Case No. 20250147-CA, filed on September 11, 2026. The court's decision reversed a lower court's judgment regarding an attorney's lien placed on property belonging to the estate of Doreen Carey. This ruling affects the parties involved and clarifies the legal standing of estates in wrongful lien claims.
The case began after Doreen Jo Carey passed away intestate on August 10, 2021. Her partner, James M. Gibbons III, sought to be appointed as the personal representative of her estate. He retained attorney Terry R. Spencer to file a petition in probate court. The probate court granted Gibbons' petition, allowing him to manage the estate's affairs. However, Gibbons was later removed from this position due to misconduct.
During his time as personal representative, Spencer recorded an attorney's lien on property within the estate, claiming he was owed over $98,000 for legal services. After Gibbons was removed, Dale Carey, Doreen's brother, became the successor personal representative. He filed a motion to nullify Spencer's lien, arguing it was wrongful. The probate court denied this motion, leading to a separate lawsuit where the estate claimed the lien was invalid.
The case eventually reached the district court, where the estate sought a judgment declaring Spencer's lien a wrongful one. The district court ruled in favor of the estate, stating that the lien was improper since Spencer had not acted as the estate's attorney. Spencer then appealed the decision, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the estate, as a non-entity, could not sue.
The Utah Court of Appeals, led by Judge John D. Luthy, reviewed the case and provided clarity on several issues. The court ruled that while the estate may not have the capacity to sue as a legal entity, the personal representative, Dale Carey, could bring the suit on behalf of the estate. The court stated, "The Estate does not lack standing; rather, it arguably lacks capacity to sue." This distinction is crucial as it means the case can proceed despite the technicality regarding the estate's legal status.
On the matter of the attorney's lien, the court found that the district court erred in granting judgment in favor of the estate. The judges concluded that Spencer had established a good-faith basis for claiming the lien, as attorney's liens are authorized by statute. The court stated, "Statutorily created liens are not wrongful under the Wrongful Lien Act unless the lien claimant lacked a good-faith basis for claiming a statutory lien." This ruling reversed the lower court's decision, which had declared the lien wrongful.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving attorney's liens and estates. It clarifies that while an estate may not be able to sue directly, the personal representative can act on its behalf. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that attorney's liens can be valid if the attorney can demonstrate a good-faith basis for the claim.
Looking ahead, the case may still see further legal proceedings. TR Spencer has the option to appeal the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the related probate case involving the estate's finances and Spencer's claim for attorney fees remains pending. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for how estates and attorney's liens are handled in Utah.