Case Title: Hedges v. Durrance

Citation: 175 Vt. 588, 2003 VT 63, 834 A.2d 1

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hedges v. Durrance (2002-074); 175 Vt. 588; 834 A.2d 1

2003 VT 63

[File 03-Jul-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 63

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-074

                              MARCH TERM, 2003

  Brenda Hedges and                    }	APPEALED FROM:
  Harry P. "Skip" Hoblin, II           }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
  John R. Durrance, Jr. and Gaston,    }
  Durrance and Fairbanks	       }	DOCKET NO. 299-5-00 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge: Alan W. Cheever

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiffs Brenda Hedges and Skip Hoblin appeal a decision of
  the Washington Superior Court granting summary judgment to defendants on
  plaintiffs' claims of attorney negligence. Plaintiffs claim that the court
  erred in finding that defendants did not owe plaintiff Hedges a duty of
  care and that plaintiff Hoblin had suffered no injury.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  This case arises out of defendant-attorney Durrance's
  representation of Hoblin.  In 1994, Hedges filed for a divorce from Hoblin. 
  Hoblin was represented by defendant Durrance of Gaston, Durrance and
  Fairbanks, LLP, and Hedges was also represented by her own attorney.  Prior
  to the divorce proceedings, plaintiffs purchased a parcel of land and
  subdivided it into three lots: the front, middle, and back lots.  Only the
  front lot abutted a road.  Plaintiffs Hedges and Hoblin sold the middle lot
  prior to commencement of the divorce proceedings and reserved a
  right-of-way between the back and front lots.  During the divorce
  proceedings, plaintiffs agreed to sell the front lot to buyers, the
  Moriartys.  An addendum to the purchase and sale agreement provided that
  the deed would reserve a right-of-way for plaintiffs Hedges and Hoblin
  across the front parcel to permit access between the town road and the back
  lot.
   
       ¶  3.  Attorney Durrance drafted the documents in connection with
  the sale of the front lot to the Moriartys.  He sent the documents,
  including the description of the right-of-way and a copy of a survey upon
  which he had hand drawn the brook used to locate the right-of-way, to
  Hoblin, Hedges's attorney, and the attorney for the Moriartys.  Attorney
  Durrance also attached a letter inviting the attorneys and their clients to
  review the documents and to suggest any changes or corrections.  The
  description of the right-of-way was based in significant part on the
  location of the brook as drawn on the survey copy that was enclosed with
  the other documents.  Hedges met with her attorney to review and discuss
  the draft deed, including the description of the right-of-way, which they
  approved.  Hedges claims, however, that if her attorney, who is not a party
  to this lawsuit, had shown her the survey sent by attorney Durrance, then
  she would have known that the brook was drawn incorrectly on the survey,
  and this would have alerted her to the problem with the right-of-way. 

       ¶  4.  The final divorce decree awarded the back lot to Hedges. 
  Several months later, Hedges and the Moriartys had a dispute over the
  location of the right-of-way.  This prompted Hedges to file an action
  against the Moriartys.  The lawsuit resulted in an order that located the
  right-of-way as desired by Hedges and awarded damages to the Moriartys for
  trespass and breach of the warranty deed.  Hoblin was not a party to the
  litigation.  Hedges and Hoblin brought suit against attorney Durrance and
  his law firm to recover damages associated with the suit against the
  Moriartys.  The court dismissed the case on summary judgment, concluding
  that attorney Durrance and his law firm did not owe a duty to plaintiff
  Hedges and that Mr. Hoblin had suffered no damages.  This appeal followed.  

       ¶  5.  On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, this Court
  applies the same standard as that used by the trial court.  White v.
  Quechee Lakes Landowners' Ass'n, 170 Vt. 25, 28,