Title: Dean v. Conn
Citation: 419 So. 2d 148
Docket Number: 53662
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: August 11, 1982

419 So. 2d 148 (1982) James Porter DEAN v. Rodger N. CONN. No. 53662. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 11, 1982. Rehearing Denied September 22, 1982. Sharp &amp; Fisher, William L. Sharp, Corinth, for appellant. Wilson &amp; Hinton, Phil R. Hinton, Corinth, for appellee. Before WALKER, P.J., and BROOM and ROY NOBLE LEE, JJ. WALKER, Presiding Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Mississippi, wherein the appellee was awarded $17,524.17 damages resulting from malpractice of the appellant, an attorney-at-law. The principal issue in this case is whether the appellant conducted his inquiry into who constituted the heirs at law of the deceased, Mrs. Sue N. Gant, in accordance with the knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the legal profession in Alcorn County, Mississippi. During November of 1973, Mrs. Sue Gant contacted James Porter Dean, an attorney, for the purpose of preparing a will and easements. Mrs. Gant met with Mr. Dean at his law office in Corinth, and during this meeting Mrs. Gant made known to Mr. Dean her wishes with respect to provisions of her will concerning her real and personal *149 property. However, Mrs. Gant never returned to execute either the will or the easements. On August 31, 1974, Mr. Dean was summoned to the hospital room of Mrs. Gant. Mrs. Gant was being discharged when Mr. Dean arrived and they agreed to meet at the appellant's office the next week to execute her will. The next day, September 1, 1974, Mrs. Gant died. Shortly after Mrs. Gant's death, Mrs. Olga Martin and Mrs. Cariece Conn, sisters of the deceased, met with Mr. Dean for the purpose of opening and guiding the estate through probate. On September 13, 1974, Mrs. Conn and Mrs. Martin returned to the appellant's office to sign the petition for appointment of co-administratrices and other probate documents. The appellant testified that, as was his usual procedure for determining heirs at law of a deceased, he questioned the sisters concerning other relatives of the deceased. At trial, the court admitted into evidence the notes made during the conversations with Mrs. Conn and Mrs. Martin. Dean further testified that nothing in the demeanor nor statements during his prior meetings with the late Mrs. Gant, nor the subsequent conversations with the sisters and their families, indicated that there were any relatives of the deceased other than Mrs. Conn and Mrs. Martin. Subsequently, the real and personal property of the deceased was divided between Mrs. Conn and Mrs. Martin. Mrs. Conn received the north 80 acres and Mrs. Martin the south 80 acres of one of the tracts of land. Shortly after the property was divided, Mrs. Martin sold her south 80 acres to her nephew, Rodger N. Conn, the appellee herein, for $20,000.00. Mrs. Conn, the appellee's mother, gratituously conveyed the north 80 acres to Rodger Conn. Since Dean handled the probate matters of the late Mrs. Gant, Rodger Conn employed James Dean to check the title to the south 80 acre tract for the purpose of securing a loan. Dean, with the information he received from the late Mrs. Gant, Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Conn, checked and certified that the title had indeed been held in fee simple by the deceased, and now by the estate of Mrs. Sue N. Gant. He simultaneously prepared a warranty deed conveying the 80 acres from Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Conn to Rodger Conn which recited that Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Conn were the only heirs at law of Mrs. Sue Gant. Based on the appellant's deed and certificate of title, Rodger Conn obtained a loan and paid his aunt, Mrs. Martin, $20,000.00 for her 80 acres. From 1974 until 1979 Rodger Conn resided on, improved and farmed the 160 acres. However, early in 1979, the other heirs of the late Mrs. Gant contacted Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Conn and Rodger Conn demanding their portion of Mrs. Gant's estate. In order to avoid protracted litigation, Rodger Conn and his attorneys negotiated with the remaining heirs and purchased the outstanding three-fifths interest in the 160 acres. At trial, the plaintiff and defendant requested and were granted, among others, the following instructions, and no question is raised on appeal concerning them. On appeal, the appellant contends that "There was no expert testimony that defendant failed to exercise the requisite care and skill in performing the services for plaintiff." Generally, the same standards of professional conduct are applicable to the attorney and physician alike, namely: As to Attorneys, see Nause v. Goldman, 321 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 1975); Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., 186 So. 2d 756 (Miss. 1966). As to Physicians, see Dazet v. Bass, 254 So. 2d 183 (Miss. 1971); Copeland v. Robertson, 236 Miss. 95, 112 So. 2d 236 (1959). As to Dentists, see Newport v. Hyde, 244 Miss. 870, 147 So. 2d 113 (1962). The generally accepted rule is that expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to support an action for malpractice of a professional man in those situations where special skills, knowledge, experience, learning or the like are required. *151 One reason for the rule is demonstrated by the situation sub judice in that laymen tend to think that an attorney's certificate of title affords the same broad protection as title insurance which is not true. Although there are circumstances in which a jury might determine the issue of an attorney's negligence without benefit of expert testimony, this case falls within the general rule where a jury is confronted with issues which require specialized knowledge or experience in order to be properly understood, and which cannot be determined intelligently merely from the deductions made and the inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge, common sense and practical experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life. 31 Am.Jur.2d Expert and Opinion Evidence § 16 (1967); 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians &amp; Surgeons § 349 (1981); 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 225 (1980); Annot., 81 A.L.R.2d 597 (1962); Annot., 17 A.L.R.3d 1442, 1443 (1968). Appellant's contention that there was no expert testimony that defendant failed to exercise the requisite care and skill in performing services for plaintiff is without merit. The plaintiff called as an expert witness the Honorable James E. Price, a member of the Bar in Alcorn County, who testified as to the standard of care exercised by attorneys in that area when determining the heirs at law of a person who died intestate and whose name appears in a chain of title to real property. His testimony follows, in part: During the trial of this cause, the appellee, the appellee's father and the ladies who administered Sue Gant's estate, Mrs. Conn and Mrs. Martin, all testified that the appellant did not, at any time, ask any questions about the relatives or family of Sue Gant. Although the appellant, James Porter Dean, disputed their testimony, the following excerpts of his testimony are pertinent: It was for the jury to determine from the evidence whether appellant had exercised the degree of care, skill, knowledge and ability ordinarily possessed by members of the legal profession in his locality in the preparation of the title certificate in question and the verdict is supported by the evidence. The remaining assignments of error are without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG, P.J., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur.