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

damagestrialmalpracticedivorcelegal malpractice
jurisdictiondamagesattorneymotionmalpracticedivorcelegal malpractice

Related Cases

Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556
View Case »
Peterson v. Winston & Strawn LLP, 729 F.3d 750, 58 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 115
View Case »
In re Marriage of Rolfe, 216 Mont. 39, 699 P.2d 79
View Case »
Long v. United States, 312 A.3d 1247
View Case »
People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171, 729 P.2d 839, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Peters v. Hyatt Legal Services, 211 Ga.App. 587, 440 S.E.2d 222

Facts

Richard E. Peters and his wife were married while both were in the U.S. Army. After a series of events leading to their separation, Peters sought legal representation from Hyatt Legal Services to obtain a divorce. He paid part of the fee and provided information for the divorce agreement but had no further contact with the firm before a final judgment was entered. The divorce documents were later found to contain forgeries of Peters's signature, and he claimed that Hyatt had represented his wife's interests instead of his own.

Richard E. Peters brought suit against Hyatt Legal Services (Hyatt), Hyatt attorney Linda Gross, and Hyatt legal assistant and notary public Kasonya M. Storey for damages resulting from Hyatt's representation of Peters in an uncontested divorce action.

Issue

Whether Peters could pursue a legal malpractice claim against Hyatt Legal Services despite the existence of a voidable divorce judgment.

client could not invoke voidable divorce judgment to complain of tangible consequences of that choice in legal malpractice action.

Rule

A divorce judgment that is not void on its face is binding until set aside, and a client may not invoke a voidable judgment to claim damages in a malpractice action.

A divorce granted by a court lacking personal jurisdiction is a nullity, Harmon v. Harmon, 209 Ga. 474(1)(b), 74 S.E.2d 75 (1953), and may be remedied by a motion to set aside the judgment in the court of rendition.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Peters's claims of injury were valid given the binding nature of the divorce judgment. It found that while Peters could not claim damages based on the voidable judgment, he had sufficiently alleged that his marital status was changed without his knowledge and under terms he did not agree to, which could support a claim for nominal damages against Hyatt.

Peters presumes that but for the prior judgment fraudulently obtained, he would have secured his mother's wedding rings, the deposit on the apartment in West Germany, and payment of the telephone bill at the apartment, and that therefore his injury is the loss of those items.

Conclusion

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's rulings, allowing Peters to pursue his claims against Hyatt while clarifying the limitations imposed by the divorce judgment.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Who won?

Peters prevailed in part as the court allowed his claims to proceed against Hyatt despite the voidable judgment.

Peters and his former wife were married on July 2, 1986. At the time, both were enlisted in the United States Army, with Mr. Peters stationed in what was then West Germany, and Mrs. Peters in Kentucky.

You must be