Opinion ID: 1734047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proximate Cause of Actual Injury, Loss, or Damage.

Text: In answer to an interrogatory, Gertrude and Rosella described the damage caused by Jenk's negligence as the loss of the seller's interest in the land contract on the tavern, valued in the estate as $24,015.36. To recover damages, they must show that, but for the attorney's negligence, the loss would not have occurred. Blackhawk, 428 N.W.2d at 290. Was the breach of a duty to correctly advise them concerning the validity of the assignment and their property right in the real estate contract a proximate cause of their loss? We think not. As expressed by the district court, Jenk may have given temporary false hope, but that does not constitute prima facie showing of a duty breached causing their injury. The probate court properly held that the assignment was never valid. If Jenk had immediately correctly advised them of the invalidity of the assignment, their property interest in the real estate contract would not have changed. The alleged breach was not a proximate cause of damage to them. Was the breach of a duty to advise them as to their potential malpractice claim against Max Jenk's estate and the applicable statute of limitations a proximate cause of their loss? We think not. It is an undisputed fact that Gertrude and Rosella employed Bitter to represent their individual interests in the Ruden estate in October 1990. He agreed to represent them although it was his opinion that the assignment was a nullity. He informed them that any lawyer should have known the assignment was void. He indicated to his clients that he did not want to handle a malpractice case against another lawyer. He mentioned it was malpractice to draft the assignment and not deliver it but that he was not interested in pursuing it. Jenk told the administrators he was not going to continue as attorney for the estate in February 1991. The court approved his withdrawal in March. A petition to reopen the Max Jenk estate to permit a malpractice claim to be filed could have been filed until July 29, 1991. Jenk's alleged negligence in failing to advise his clients of the potential claim in the Max Jenk's estate is not a proximate cause of damage if a successor attorney is employed and he advises them of the potential malpractice claim at a time when such a claim is not barred by the statutory limitation on reopening of the estate. See Steketee v. Lintz, Williams & Rothberg, 38 Cal.3d 46, 210 Cal. Rptr. 781, 787, 694 P.2d 1153, 1159 (1985) (An attorney cannot be held liable for failing to file an action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations if he ceased to represent the client and was replaced by other counsel before the statute ran on the client's action.). Likewise, was the failure to promptly withdraw as counsel a proximate cause of the loss? We think not. Under the undisputed facts of this case, Gertrude and Rosella had sufficient time to engage a new attorney to reopen the estate for the purpose of filing a malpractice claim.