Opinion ID: 2323988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Mr. Boehm was guilty of the breach of a fiduciary relationship.

Text: The thrust of this argument, that an attorney-client relationship existed between Mr. Boehm and the Katskis, finds no support in the testimony. In her direct examination, Mrs. Katski was asked the question, Can you tell the Court if Mr. Boehm was the lawyer for you and Mr. Katski and for Bay Electric? and answered, Yes, he was. In response to the question, And how long had he been? she said, I would say since 1949-1950, approximately twelve or thirteen years. Mrs. Katski was then asked, Had Mr. Boehm also been connected with Bay Electric Company in any way? and she replied, Yes, he helped to form the corporation. However, on cross examination Mrs. Katski admitted that about five times she had bought property and signed notes and mortgages individually and was represented by an attorney, who was not identified, and then, in answer to the question, Now, you say Mr. Boehm was your personal attorney or attorney for the Bay Electric? replied, He was an attorney for Bay Electric, if the need be, he handled personal things. He did not really handle anything personal for me because I'd never had anything come up personally. Later, when pressed with respect to the misrepresentation alleged to have constituted a breach of the fiduciary relationship, Mrs. Katski alluded to a statement made by Mr. Boehm with respect to two notes in amounts of $9,000 and $3,500 which are not before us in the present case. The lower court correctly found no evidence of a fiduciary relationship.