 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett v. Freise11/24/2003
Snohomish County on December 1, 2000.
The court approved the settlement on behalf of the minor children, and approved the stipulation whereby $20,000 in legal fees from the $60,000 settlement was to be divided between the Freise law firm and the attorney who had completed JoLynn's representation after Freise's withdrawal. The sum of $146,666.67 was retained in the clerk's trust account pending trial of the reasonableness petition. After the court approved the limited guardian's settlement of Jeff's claim against the drunk driver, the balance of the American States proceeds, $440,000, was paid to John Barrett for the benefit of Jeffrey Barrett. The proceeds were disbursed when the settlement draft was cleared for payment, on or about January 10, 2001. Meanwhile, the marital dissolution action was tried in Snohomish County Superior Court in 1998, before the same trial judge who heard the summary judgment motions in the legal malpractice case. The dissolution court rejected Jeff's claims that JoLynn had wasted the settlement proceeds from the UIM settlement, and found that with a minor exception, which was taken care of in the overall property distribution, JoLynn had spent the $64,000 in net UIM settlement proceeds for Jeff's care and that of the parties' minor children.
The Trial
In June 2001, the remaining issues regarding Freise's attorney fees for the personal injury action were tried to the same judge who had presided over the marital dissolution trial and the earlier summary judgment proceedings. The trial lasted 5 days, during which the court limited the parties to presenting evidence in support of John and Jeff's claim that Freise was owed nothing for his services regarding the settlement with American States, and Freise's counter-claim that he was entitled to receive one-third of Jeff's net recovery of $440,000 from the American States recovery. On September 27, 2001, the court entered lengthy and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating the 16 findings found to be uncontroverted at the time of the summary judgment, and also incorporating its earlier finding from the dissolution trial that JoLynn had not wasted the net proceeds from the UIM settlement. Based on its findings and conclusions, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Freise and his law firm in the amount of $147,281.28 inclusive of costs and prejudgment interest from January 10, 2001.
John and Jeff then filed this appeal, raising 66 assignments of error and 32 issues challenging the trial court's summary judgment rulings and numerous of its findings of fact and conclusions of law following the trial.
ANALYSIS
Jeff's Liability Claims
The first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary obligation, negligent misrepresentation, and Consumer Protection Act claims.
We observe at the outset that the Barretts fail to address and argue their negligent misrepresentation and Consumer Protection Act claims in their briefing for this appeal. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the dismissal of those claims, without discussion.
An appellate court reviews a summary judgment order de novo, performing the same inquiry as the trial court. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wn.2d 715, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993). Summary judgment is proper if, after considering all of the facts, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wn.2d 450, 45
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|