Today at the Court of Appeals (3/9/11)
By Bob Numbers
Today, Wednesday, March 9, 2011, a panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals comprised of Judges Bryant, Elmore, and Geer will hear oral argument in the following case:
Marion Partners, LLC v. Weatherspoon & Voltz, LLP - This matter involves a claim of legal malpractice where the plaintiffs allege that their attorney failed to properly advise them of material changes in a commercial lease. The appellants are involved in the business of purchasing properties and then leasing the properties to CVS Corporation, a national drug store chain. According to the plaintiffs, CVS added a new provision to the standard lease agreement that shifted the responsibility to pay for any taxes resulting from a sale of the property and a reassessment of the property value from CVS to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that their attorney failed to advise them of this provision or its implications, resulting in substantial damages. After the parties conducted discovery, the defendants sought and were granted summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.
On appeal the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred by (1) disregarding statements in the plaintiff's affidavits because the statements were "not in direct contradiction" with the plaintiff's deposition testimony, but instead only served to "elaborate on their prior sworn testimony"; (2) granting summary judgment despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact; and (3) dismissing plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claim when they are allegedly based on different facts from the legal malpractice claim.
Briefs and Other Documents
Record on Appeal
Appellant's Brief
Appellee's Brief
Marion Partners, LLC v. Weatherspoon & Voltz, LLP - This matter involves a claim of legal malpractice where the plaintiffs allege that their attorney failed to properly advise them of material changes in a commercial lease. The appellants are involved in the business of purchasing properties and then leasing the properties to CVS Corporation, a national drug store chain. According to the plaintiffs, CVS added a new provision to the standard lease agreement that shifted the responsibility to pay for any taxes resulting from a sale of the property and a reassessment of the property value from CVS to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that their attorney failed to advise them of this provision or its implications, resulting in substantial damages. After the parties conducted discovery, the defendants sought and were granted summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.
On appeal the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred by (1) disregarding statements in the plaintiff's affidavits because the statements were "not in direct contradiction" with the plaintiff's deposition testimony, but instead only served to "elaborate on their prior sworn testimony"; (2) granting summary judgment despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact; and (3) dismissing plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claim when they are allegedly based on different facts from the legal malpractice claim.
Briefs and Other Documents
Record on Appeal
Appellant's Brief
Appellee's Brief
Labels: Oral Argument Preview
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home