Legal Malpractice (3)
Sun, 11/16/2008 - 22:58 — NHCaseLaw.com
GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, Jose Hilario, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Lynn, C.J.) dismissing his legal malpractice action against the defendant, Attorney Neil J. Reardon. We reverse and remand.
Sun, 10/05/2008 - 23:55 — NHCaseLaw.com
The facts giving rise to this order are undisputed and readily established by the record. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, his ex-wife, for a so-called "Murphy" (Murphy v. Financial Development Corp., 126 NH 536 (1985)) claim after defendant foreclosed on a mortgage which she held on the marital homestead to secure payment of her interest therein. Attorney Tony F. Soltani represented the defendant at all material times and was solely responsible for conducting the foreclosure sale. Following trial, the jury found that the defendant had breached not merely her duty of due diligence but also her duty of good faith to the plaintiff in her conduct of the foreclosure sale and awarded damages based on the "fair market value" of the residence as of the date of the foreclosure. During deliberations, the jury specifically asked whether the defendant was responsible for the actions of her attorney in the conduct of the sale which question was answered in the affirmative.
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 00:47 — DLG
The plaintiffs have brought suit against three sets of attorneys alleging negligence on their part regarding a failed business transaction. The plaintiffs are the owners of Television Station WNDS, and they executed an Asset Purchase Agreement for its sale on September 26, 1996, with Ramcast Corp., predecessor in interest to a company named Global Broadcasting System, Inc. Pursuant to the Agreement, the plaintiffs turned over possession of the television station to Global on April 4, 1997. The purchase price was 18 million dollars and representations were made by Global's attorneys, based upon the assurances of Global's principals, that the moneys had been wired that day to the plaintiffs when in fact they had not. The plaintiffs initially sued Global for breach of contract and recovered a judgment. However, the judgment is uncollected because of the bankruptcy of Global.