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

plaintiffjurisdictiondamagesattorneymotionmalpracticetrustleaselegal malpractice

plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneyverdictmalpracticeleasedivorcelegal malpracticeduty of care

Related Cases

Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 435 N.J.Super. 198, 87 A.3d 775

Facts

Peter Innes and Maria Jose Carrascosa were embroiled in a custody dispute over their daughter, Victoria. An agreement was made that Victoria's passport would be held in trust by attorney Mitchell Liebowitz during the proceedings. However, after Liebowitz transferred his file to Marzano-Lesnevich's firm, they released the passport to Carrascosa, who subsequently took Victoria to Spain. Innes alleged that this action constituted legal malpractice, leading to emotional distress and separation from his daughter.

In October 2004, Innes and Carrascosa were separated but neither had filed a divorce complaint. Innes was represented by Van Aulen, and Carrascosa was represented by Liebowitz. Victoria was four and one-half years old and resided with Carrascosa after the separation.

Issue

Did the attorney's release of the daughter's passport to the mother constitute legal malpractice, and were the damages claimed by Innes for emotional distress recoverable?

1 attorney's release of daughter's American passport to wife was a proximate cause of any damages suffered by husband as result of wife's subsequent removal of daughter from country;

Rule

The elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice include the existence of an attorney-client relationship, a breach of that duty, and proximate causation of the damages claimed by the plaintiff.

“The elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice are (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship creating a duty of care by the defendant attorney, (2) the breach of that duty by the defendant, and (3) proximate causation of the damages claimed by the plaintiff.”

Analysis

The court determined that the attorney's release of the passport was a proximate cause of the damages suffered by Innes, as it facilitated the mother's ability to remove the child from the jurisdiction. The court also found that the conduct of the attorney and law firm was sufficiently egregious to warrant emotional distress damages, and that Innes was not required to present expert medical evidence to recover such damages.

The judge also concluded that a fact finder could determine that defendants should have foreseen Innes would rely upon them to retain Victoria's passport, return it to Liebowitz if they were not going to honor the agreement, or at least not let the passport fall into Carrascosa's hands.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Innes for emotional distress damages but reversed the award of damages to the daughter, finding it speculative. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Who won?

Peter Innes prevailed in the case, as the court found that the attorney's actions directly caused his emotional distress and separation from his daughter.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and awarded damages of $700,000 to Innes and $250,000 to Victoria.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 597

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 643 F.2d 195, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 632, 1981-1 Trade Cases P 63,966

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911

Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196

Board of Overseers of Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103, 2011 ME 124