 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sharts v. Natelson6/30/1993
ars earlier when he became aware of the problem. Sharts also threatened to sue Natelson for malpractice for approximately $800,000 to $2,000,000 if the declaratory judgment action was unsuccessful. Sharts characterized these damages as direct, provable, and caused by Natelson's carelessness. Sharts also warned that he was bringing to New Mexico very expensive and professional "family" attorneys who were interested in the case.
At his deposition, Sharts testified that he sent the letter to Natelson to "rattle Steve's cage" because he was frustrated with the slow pace of the litigation and perceived the problem as "foot dragging" on Natelson's part. Sharts also testified that, if he won the declaratory judgment action, he did not intend to sue Natelson for the $35,000. Sharts added that he never contacted the attorneys referred to in his letter.
Despite the threatening letter, Natelson continued to represent Sharts in the declaratory judgment action and in other matters. Sharts testified that he continued to rely on Natelson's counsel and believed that Natelson would ultimately succeed in lifting the cloud from the Tract Two titles. On June 20, 1985, the court entered an order disqualifying Natelson from representing Sharts in the declaratory judgment action because Natelson was a potential witness in the case. The court gave Sharts fifteen days to obtain new counsel.
On July 10, 1985, attorney Daniel Marlowe entered his appearance on behalf of Sharts in the declaratory judgment action. On September 22, 1986, the declaratory judgment action was decided against Sharts, and the three-acre lot restriction was held applicable to Tract Two. This Court affirmed the declaratory judgment in that case on June 14, 1988, in . On July 10, 1989, exactly four years after Marlowe entered his formal appearance in the declaratory judgment action, Sharts filed the present legal malpractice action against Natelson.
II. DISCUSSION
We first note the trial court's decision in this case was made within the limitations of a summary judgment motion. See SCRA 1986, 1-056. In a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence, and construe all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. ; . On appeal, this Court must review the record in the light most favorable to support a trial on the merits. ); see also .
A. New Mexico Statute of Limitations and Attorney Malpractice
For breaches of unwritten contracts and torts affecting property, inter alia, the relevant statutory sections prescribe a four-year period of limitation. See ยงยง 37-1-1 and -4. Section 37-1-1 provides, "the following suits or actions may be brought within the time hereinafter limited, respectively, after their causes accrue, and not afterwards, except when otherwise specially provided." Section 37-1-4 provides, "those founded upon accounts and unwritten contracts; those brought for injuries to property or for the conversion of personal property or for relief upon the ground of fraud, and all other actions not herein otherwise provided for and specified within four years." As noted above, the procedural limitation provided by Sections 37-1-1 and -4, as it relates to legal malpractice, was first discussed by our Supreme Court in Jaramillo.
In that case, the defendant attorney (hereinafter "Hood") was accused of negligently drafting and supervising the execution of a will. Shortly after the testatrix's death, the will was admitted to probate. Over the next four years, several different attorneys entered appearances on
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|