Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractattorneyappealtrialverdictmalpracticebankruptcylegal counsel
contractattorneytrialsummary judgmentlegal counsel

Related Cases

Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf, 32 Cal.4th 453, 84 P.3d 379, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1473, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2254
View Case »
Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 428 N.E.2d 387, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55
View Case »
Warpar Mfg. Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 852
View Case »
The Florida Bar v. Neale, 384 So.2d 1264
View Case »
In re Estate of Rothenberg, 176 Ill.App.3d 176, 530 N.E.2d 1148, 125 Ill.Dec. 739
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Behrens v. Wedmore, 698 N.W.2d 555, 2005 S.D. 79

Facts

Jon and Don Behrens owned a successful funeral home and negotiated a sale to Loewen International, Inc. without legal counsel. After signing an agreement, they engaged attorney Melvin Wedmore to close the transaction. Following the closing, Loewen filed for bankruptcy, leading the Behrens to file a malpractice suit against Wedmore, claiming he failed to secure better terms and charged an unreasonable fee. A jury found in favor of Wedmore, leading to the appeal.

Jon and Don Behrens (jointly referred to as Behrens) owned and operated a funeral home in Rapid City. Without the assistance of legal counsel, they negotiated an agreement to sell their business to Loewen International, Inc. After signing the agreement, Behrens engaged Melvin Wedmore, their long-time attorney, to close the transaction with Loewen.

Issue

Whether the initial purchase agreement was a binding contract and whether the attorney's actions constituted malpractice.

Whether Behrens were entitled to summary judgment declaring that the Initial Agreement was a letter of intent, rather than a binding contract.

Rule

The existence of a valid contract is a question of law, but if in dispute, the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder.

In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment … we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and [established] entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.

Analysis

The court determined that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the initial purchase agreement was binding. The jury was instructed on the principles of contract formation, and the evidence presented indicated that the agreement contained sufficient terms to be considered binding. The court also noted that the attorney's ability to negotiate was limited by the terms of the initial agreement.

The trial court denied summary judgment, concluding that the jury was required to resolve factual issues concerning the conduct and intent of the parties to determine whether the Initial Agreement was a binding contract.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Wedmore, concluding that the trial court did not err in its instructions or in denying the sellers' claims.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Melvin Wedmore prevailed in the case because the jury found that he did not commit malpractice and that the initial agreement was binding, limiting his ability to renegotiate terms.

A jury found for Wedmore on all issues.

You must be