Hyduke v. Grant
| Decision Date | 17 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-83-2019,C9-83-2019 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Michael HYDUKE, Appellant, v. David A. GRANT, and Broeker, Hartfeldt, Hedges & Grant, a partnership, Respondents. |
Syllabus by the Court
In this attorney malpractice case, no genuine issue existed as to any material fact and the trial court thus properly granted respondents' motion for summary judgment.
Michael Hyduke, pro se.
Donna J. Blazevic, Bassford, Heckt, Lockhart & Mullin, P.A., Raymond E. Olson, MacIntosh & Commers, Minneapolis, for respondents.
Heard, considered, and decided by FOLEY, P.J., and RANDALL and SEDGWICK, JJ.
Michael Hyduke brought this action against attorney David Grant and Grant's firm, Broeker, Hartfeldt, Hedges & Grant, alleging legal malpractice. The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid legal fees. After the district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the malpractice claim and their counterclaim, Hyduke appealed. We affirm.
Beginning in August, 1975, Grant and his firm ("lawyers") represented appellant in a wrongful discharge action against his former employer, where he had been employed as a "corporate communicator." At the close of that trial, the court entered a directed verdict against Hyduke. According to Hyduke, he asked the lawyers to file an appeal from that case, and they failed to do so. The lawyers denied he had requested an appeal, but, for purposes of the summary judgment motion in the malpractice action, assumed without conceding that Hyduke had directed them to appeal. The sole issue decided by the summary judgment was thus whether an appeal would have been successful. For purposes of the summary judgment motion on their counterclaim, the lawyers accepted Hyduke's statement of the amount he owed them.
In the wrongful discharge action, the trial court directed a verdict against Hyduke on several grounds. The court found that Hyduke was not covered by an employment contract or a collective bargaining agreement and that based on Hyduke's own testimony, Hyduke had been fired because of his failure to meet production deadlines which he himself had set. The court further found that, even if Minnesota recognized a cause of action for wrongful discharge in an "at-will" employment situation, the employer's actions were not so outrageous or abusive as to trigger it.
Assuming that the lawyers were negligent in failing to appeal the directed verdict in Hyduke's wrongful discharge action, did the trial court err in entering summary judgment in favor of the lawyers on the legal malpractice claim?
Did the trial court err in entering summary judgment in favor of the lawyers on their counterclaim for attorney fees?
Legal malpractice claim:
Scope of review: On an appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court is limited to a determination of whether any genuine issues of material fact existed which should have been determined by a jury and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328 (Minn.1979). In addition, a reviewing court may not, ordinarily, consider issues not considered by the trial court. Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, 322 N.W.2d 599 (Minn.1982). There are exceptions to this rule, as the appellant pointed out in his reply brief, but such exceptions are made only in cases where to decline to review would work an injustice or infringe upon a constitutional right. See e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) ().
Elements of malpractice: The Minnesota Supreme Court set forth the elements of a legal malpractice claim in Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O'Toole, 336 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Minn.1983). One claiming attorney malpractice must show (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, (2) acts constituting negligence or a breach of contract, (3) that those acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages, and (4) that but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action. Here, Hyduke must show that appeal from the verdict in his wrongful discharge action would have resulted either in outright reversal or in a new trial. If he shows that a new trial would have been ordered, he must show that the new trial would probably have been successful.
The lawyers cite three out-of-state cases ( Stafford v. Garrett, 46 Or.App. 781, 613 P.2d 99 (1980); Dings v. Callahan, 4 Kan.App.2d 36, 602 P.2d 542 (1979); and Croce v. Sanchez, 256 Cal.App.2d 680, 64 Cal.Rptr. 448 (1967)) for the proposition that whether an appeal would have been successful is a question of law and may thus be determined by the court on a summary judgment motion. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not ruled on the question, but such is the logical position. A court is qualified, in a way a jury is not, to determine the merits and the probable outcome of an appeal.
Wrongful discharge: In an employment-at-will situation, the Minnesota Supreme Court still recognizes the rule set forth in Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520, 117 N.W.2d 213 (1962), that an employee may be discharged for any reason or for no reason at all. Absent any form of prohibited discrimination, any union contract, or any employment contract allowing termination only for specific reasons or "for cause," continued employment is at the whim of the employer. Other jurisdictions have recognized a right of action for at-will employees who are terminated when the circumstances are "extraordinary" or when the employer's conduct has been "abusive" or "outrageous." For Hyduke's appeal to succeed, our Supreme Court would have to overrule Cederstrand and adopt the minority view, and find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko
...subject is, and should not be permitted to return a finding or verdict premised on an erroneous view of the law"); Hyduke v. Grant, 351 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn App, 1984) (finding that "whether an appeal would have been successful is a question of law" because "[a] court is qualified, in a wa......
-
Millhouse v. Wiesenthal
...680, 683, 64 Cal.Rptr. 448, 449-50 (1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 927, 88 S.Ct. 1827, 20 L.Ed.2d 666 (1968); Hyduke v. Grant, 351 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); Katsaris v. Scelsi, 115 Misc.2d 115, 118, 453 N.Y.S.2d 994, 996-97 (1982); Jablonski v. Higgins, 6 Ohio Misc.2d 8, 10-11, 453......
-
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
...that the client prove that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action but for the attorney's conduct. See Hyduke v. Grant, 351 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn.App.1984) (listing elements of legal malpractice in litigation context). Arguably, there is inherent damage when a client is perm......
-
Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko
...v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415, 733 P.2d 300 (App.1986); Fine & Block v. Evans, 201 Ga.App. 294, 411 S.E.2d 73 (1991); Hyduke v. Grant, 351 N.W.2d 675 (Minn.App.1984); Chocktoot v. Smith, 280 Or. 567, 571 P.2d 1255 (1977); Floyd v. Kosko, 285 S.C. 390, 329 S.E.2d 459 (App.1985); Millhouse v. Wies......