Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07086/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Cawley
Appellee
Jerry Putman
Appellant
Lona Putman
Appellant
Mitchell D. Sperry
Appellee
Thompson & Cawley
Appellee

Document Text:

FI L ~ D 

United States Co~~! Ap~b 

Tenth C1rcu11. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FEBO 71992 

------------"OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JERRY PUTMAN, LONA PUTMAN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

MITCHELL D. SPERRY; MICHAEL A. 

CAWLEY; THOMPSON & CAWLEY, 

a professional corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-7086 

(O.C. No. CIV-90-617-S) 

(E. O. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed . R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The Putmans brought this diversity action asserting that 

defendants committed attorney malpractice under Oklahoma law. The 

district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, 

concluding that the undisputed facts failed to establish the 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-7086 Document: 010110222502 Date Filed: 02/07/1992 Page: 1 
Putmans would have been successful in the litigation underlying 

their claim but for defendants' alleged wrongful acts. We 

reverse. 

This suit arises out of a state foreclosure action in which 

defendants here represented the Putmans, who were named as 

defendants in the foreclosure action. The alleged malpractice 

occurred in connection with defendants' representation of the 

Putmans on a summary judgment motion in the state suit, which the 

Putmans lost. The Putmans, represented by new counsel, filed an 

untimely motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment 

against them, raising various defenses to the underlying 

foreclosure action. The district court held a hearing on the 

motion to reconsider and denied it. The nub of the appeal before 

us is the ground upon which this denial was based. 

Under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff alleging attorney malpractice 

"must demonstrate that but for the negligence complained of the 

client would have succeeded in his action." Allred v. Rabon, 572 

P.2d 979, 981 (Okla. 1977). Thus, if the state court considered 

and rejected the merits of the Putmans' defenses to the 

foreclosure action in denying their motion to reconsider, the 

Putmans cannot make the requisite showing that those defenses 

would have been successful against the earlier summary judgment 

motion but for defendants' alleged negligence. The Putmans argue 

that the district court denied their motion to reconsider because 

it was out of time, while defendants contend that the court's 

decision was based on its consideration of the merits. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7086 Document: 010110222502 Date Filed: 02/07/1992 Page: 2 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that even if the state 

court took a quick look at the merits of the Putmans' defenses, 

the court made the untimeliness of the motion to reconsider a 

factor in its consideration. The court unambiguously gave weight 

to this procedural default and therefore did not consider the 

merits as it would have done had the motion been timely. Under 

these circumstances, we cannot say as a matter of law that the 

Putmans could not show that their defenses would have prevailed 

had they been properly presented. 

The district court in the instant case granted defendants' 

motion for summary judgment upon concluding that the state court 

had ruled fully on the merits of the Putmans' defenses to the 

state suit in denying the motion to reconsider. Because we 

conclude to the contrary, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7086 Document: 010110222502 Date Filed: 02/07/1992 Page: 3