Los Angeles County Superior Court

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff client sued defendant, a criminal defense attorney, for legal malpractice and several other claims. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's deficient representation caused plaintiff to be found in violation of probation. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, sustained defendant's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed.

Overview: civil code 3288

The court concluded that all of plaintiff's claims sounded in legal malpractice. As alleged in his complaint, plaintiff was found in violation of probation for not cooperating with the financial evaluator and not timely paying restitution. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's deficient performance in the restitution and probation violation proceedings caused the trial court to find him in violation of probation, resulting in his being incarcerated longer than was necessary. Plaintiff was required to show actual innocence of the probation violations allegedly resulting from defendant's malpractice and also obtain post-violation exoneration of these violations. Because plaintiff failed to allege his actual innocence of his probation violations, i.e., facts showing that he timely paid restitution and fully cooperated with the financial evaluator, and also made no showing that he obtained post-violation exoneration, the demurrer to all his causes of action was properly sustained.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's decision sustaining the demurrer. However, because plaintiff appealed to the appellate department of the superior court and the record did not show the outcome of that appeal, the court conditionally reversed the judgment as to the order denying leave to amend and remanded the case to the trial court.

Procedural Posture

The trial court dissolved the partnership, awarded damages and prejudgment interest to defendant co-owners on their cross-complaint, and resolved a personal property issue.

Overview

Plaintiffs and defendants formed a 50/50 partnership to buy a townhouse. Defendants contributed the down payment and plaintiffs promised to make all the mortgage payments. Plaintiffs defaulted on the mortgage and defendants purchased the townhouse at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued unsuccessfully for breach of fiduciary duties and constructive fraud.

On appeal, the court stated that anyone, including a former partner, might bid at a foreclosure sale. Defendants violated no duty by acquiring the property at foreclosure sale. Constructive fraud was usually based upon a failure to disclose relevant matters to another partner. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision that there was no breach of any duty that would justify an award of damages for constructive fraud.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service