Court Opinion

ID: 9517523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:19:41.512838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:18.417072
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
The majority cites McDow v. Dixon, 138 Ga.App. 338, 226 S.E.2d 145 (1976), for the proposition that plaintiff must prove malpractice negligence and collectibility. The plaintiff in McDow alleged that defendant attorney was negligent in not filing a personal injury action on her behalf against a dance studio within the statute of limitations. To prove damages (i.e. collectibility) against her attorney, the McDow court said plaintiff could introduce evidence of the dance studio’s “worldly circumstances, financial status, assets,” etc. Id. 226 S.E.2d at 148.
This case came to the trial court in an entirely different posture. Plaintiff Oil Company has a judgment in hand for $107,-300.20. The only way it can prove collecti-bility is by actually trying to collect the judgment by levy in execution. SDCL ch. *3115-18. If Ripley has property subject to levy, it is sold and the judgment is satisfied in whole or in part. The satisfaction it received in proving the attorney negligent must be its own reward. Plaintiff’s attempt to collect damages in the manner here employed is inappropriate.