Court Opinion

ID: 9770247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:55:33.906019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.949358
License: Public Domain

DYCHE, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority as it applies to the claim against the Jaspers and Ms. Tennill. I must dissent in part, however, as to the majority’s holding as it applies to the attorney involved herein. Hill v. Willmott, Ky.App., 561 S.W.2d 331 (1978), imposes a duty toward the purchasers upon an attorney in a situation such as this; the attorney’s responsibility, however, is limited to damages sustained on Lot 13 only, as appellants had already contracted to purchase Lot 8 prior to any involvement of the attorney.