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

contractbreach of contractattorneystatuteappealsummary judgmentstatute of limitations
contractlawsuitbreach of contractstatuteappealsummary judgmentstatute of limitationsappellant

Related Cases

Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan, 193 F.3d 210
View Case »
In re Link, 713 S.W.2d 487
View Case »
U.S. v. Snitz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 433620
View Case »
Mitchell v. United States, 314 A.3d 1144
View Case »
Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 91 S.Ct. 720, 27 L.Ed.2d 749
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Macurdy v. Sikov & Love, P.A., 894 F.2d 818

Facts

Tom E. Macurdy, an Ohio resident and former Pennsylvania attorney, had six clients in Pennsylvania whose cases he transferred to the law firm Sikov & Love after his disbarment. They orally agreed to split the legal fees 50-50. After settling the cases, Sikov & Love informed Macurdy that he would only receive compensation based on quantum meruit due to his disbarment. Macurdy filed suit in Ohio state court alleging fraud and breach of contract after the firm settled the cases and sent him partial payments.

At the time relevant to this lawsuit, appellant Macurdy was an Ohio resident living and practicing law in Ohio.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Ohio or Pennsylvania law governed the claims and whether the fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The principal issue in the case, although there are others, is whether Pennsylvania or Ohio law governs.

Rule

The court applied the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law to determine that Ohio law applied to the fraud claim, while Pennsylvania law governed the breach of contract claim due to the nature of the agreement and the location of the services.

In this case, the district court analyzed the choice of law principles pertaining to suits for breach of contract claims but not for fraud claims.

Analysis

The court found that the district court erred in applying Pennsylvania's statute of limitations to the fraud claim, as the alleged fraud occurred in Ohio. The court determined that Ohio's four-year statute of limitations for fraud claims applied, making Macurdy's claim timely. Additionally, the court noted that the district court did not adequately address whether the fee-splitting agreement violated Pennsylvania's disciplinary rules, which required further factual development.

The court found that the district court erred in applying Pennsylvania's statute of limitations to the fraud claim, as the alleged fraud occurred in Ohio.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed for further examination of the facts regarding the fee agreement and the application of the relevant laws.

For the foregoing reasons, the summary judgment is VACATED.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Tom E. Macurdy, as the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Sikov & Love, allowing his claims to proceed.

The prevailing party was Tom E. Macurdy, as the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Sikov & Love, allowing his claims to proceed.

You must be