Opinion ID: 2570766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The January 23, 1995, letter

Text: The district court concluded that the January 23, 1995, letter from Beeks to Greg Anderson was immaterial to the issues resolved on the cross-motions for summary judgment in the shareholder litigation and thus was not the proximate cause of the Jordans' claimed damages. The Jordans argue, however, that attorney Beeks's letter of January 23, 1995, was central to Judge Burdick's ruling in the shareholder litigation that Greg Anderson did not intend to be bound by the agreement until it had been put into writing. They contend that but for the letter which they perceive invited Greg Anderson to assert for the first time that he did not intend to be bound by the oral agreement, Judge Burdick would not have decided the summary judgment against them and declared the parties' oral agreement unenforceable. The evidence for the district court to consider on the motion for summary judgment was in large part the same evidence that was before Judge Burdick in the shareholder litigation. In addition, the Jordans provided an affidavit from attorney B. Newal Squyres containing his opinion that attorney Beeks had breached a duty of care to the Jordans by sending the January 23, 1995, letter which undermined their case. The affidavit also purported to raise an issue of fact as to whether Judge Burdick relied on the January 23, 1995, letter to dismiss the Jordans' complaint for specific performance of the agreement reached at the shareholders' meeting in the absence of a written agreement. Upon consideration of the evidence, the district court found that Greg Anderson had never expressly stated any intent to be bound by the agreement reached at the shareholders' meeting. The district court also found, consistent with Judge Burdick's findings, that Greg had indicated an unwillingness to be bound by the terms of the agreement after consultation with his attorney and that Greg's refusal to sign the agreement drafted by attorney Kvanvig was not precipitated by attorney Beeks's letter. Thus, the significance of the January 23, 1995, letter to Judge Burdick's decision was not as the Jordans' expert claimed. [3] The district court was correct in holding that no factual issue with regard to the malpractice action had been raised by the Squyres affidavit or otherwise.