Opinion ID: 1171472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assignment of the Cause of Action Against HT to Stevens.

Text: In a motion for summary judgment, HT challenged the agreement between Stevens and Bohna, contending that it constituted an impermissible assignment of Bohna's malpractice claim against HT. After considering case law from Alaska and other jurisdictions, the trial court concluded that [o]n its face, the assignment is for more than the proceeds from the recovery in this case [and thus] the assignment is invalid on its face. The court, however, did not dismiss Bohna's claim for malpractice against HT. HT argues that Bohna's malpractice claim against HT should have been dismissed because Bohna illegally assigned his cause of action to Stevens. [40] We disagree. Assuming that the Stevens-Bohna agreement constituted an assignment, it was held invalid by the trial court. Therefore, Bohna retained his cause of action against HT and proceeded to enforce it.