Case Title: Oakes v. Clark

Citation: 

Docket Number: 609, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CALVIN OAKES,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JOHN A. CLARK, III,  
 
           Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 609, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N10C-04-146 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 10, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 18, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Calvin Oakes, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s November 2, 2012 order granting the motion of the 
defendant-appellee, John A. Clark, III, for summary judgment pursuant to 
 
2
Superior Court Civil Rule 56.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm.2 
 
(2) 
The record in this case reflects that, on April 19, 2010, Oakes 
filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that Clark, a Delaware 
attorney, had engaged in professional negligence while representing Oakes 
in divorce proceedings in the Family Court.  The Family Court matter 
underlying Oakes’ Superior Court complaint involved Oakes’ 2006 divorce 
from his former wife and the litigation that ensued in 2008 in connection 
with the ancillary matters of property division, alimony and attorneys fees.  
In 2009, the Family Court issued its decision on the ancillary matters.  
Finding that Oakes was “evasive and untruthful regarding his income,” the 
Family Court divided the marital property 50/50, denied Oakes’ request for 
alimony and granted Oakes’ former wife’s request for attorney’s fees.3 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Oakes claims that a) the Superior Court’s 
decision was based on issues not raised in the motion for summary 
                                                 
1 This Court previously reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of this action and 
remanded the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with 
Rule 56.  Oakes v. Clark, Del. Supr., No. 708, 2010, Steele, C.J. (Nov. 10, 2011). 
2 On November 29, 2012, Clark filed a cross-appeal in this Court on the ground that the 
Superior Court’s order erroneously failed to grant the motion for summary judgment on 
the additional ground of collateral estoppel.   
3 This Court twice affirmed the Family Court’s judgment.  Olsen v. Olsen, 971 A.2d 170 
(Del. 2009); Owens v. Owens, Del. Supr., No. 300, 2010, Ridgely, J. (Jan. 14, 2011).  
This Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Oakes’ complaint alleging bad 
faith and fraud against his former counsel, counsel’s paralegal and his former wife.  
Oakes v. Oakes, Del. Supr., No. 709, 2010, Jacobs, J. (Feb. 16, 2011).   
 
3
judgment; b) the Superior Court improperly engaged in its own fact-finding; 
and c) the Superior Court should have accepted the statements made in 
certain affidavits he submitted and, on that basis, should have denied the 
motion for summary judgment. 
 
(4) 
In an appeal from the Superior Court’s grant of summary 
judgment, this Court utilizes a de novo standard of review.4  On a motion for 
summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there are no 
genuine issues of material fact and, viewing the facts in the light most 
favorable to the non-moving party, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.5  On a claim of legal malpractice, the plaintiff must establish the 
following elements: a) the employment of the attorney; b) the attorney’s 
neglect of a professional obligation; and c) resulting loss.6  In connection 
with the final element, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the underlying 
action would have been successful but for the attorney’s negligence.7  
Moreover, it is well-settled that expert testimony is necessary to support a 
claim of legal malpractice, except in those cases where the attorney’s 
mistakes are so obvious that such testimony is not required.8 
                                                 
4 ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 21 A.3d 62, 68 (Del. 2011). 
5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). 
6 Weaver v. Lukoff, Del. Supr., No. 15, 1986, McNeilly, J. (July 1, 1986) (citing Seiler v. 
Levitz Furniture Co., 367 A.2d 999, 1008 (Del. 1976)). 
7 Id. 
8 Brett v. Berkowitz, 706 A.2d 509, 517-18 (Del. 1998). 
 
4
 
(5) 
We have undertaken a careful, de novo review of the record 
below.  We can discern no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court in granting Clark’s motion for summary judgment.  We do 
not find Oakes’ claims of error and abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court to be supported by the record.  Finding that there were no 
genuine issues of material fact, and viewing those facts in the light most 
favorable to Oakes, the Superior Court properly determined that Oakes could 
not demonstrate that he would have been successful on his claims in the 
Family Court but for professional errors made by his attorney.9  We, 
therefore, conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court must be 
affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
    
 
                                                 
9 Our review of the record below does not reflect that Oakes had engaged an expert to 
support his claim of legal malpractice.  
10 We do not find it necessary to decide Clark’s claim that the Superior Court erroneously 
failed to grant the motion for summary judgment on the additional ground of collateral 
estoppel.  Therefore, Clark’s cross-appeal is hereby dismissed as moot.