Lange v. Marshall, No. 41734
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH; SATZ, P. J., and SIMON |
| Citation | 622 S.W.2d 237 |
| Parties | Elizabeth P. LANGE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Richard M. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 41734 |
Page 237
v.
Richard M. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied
Sept. 21, 1981.
Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 10, 1981.
John J. Horgan, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
J. B. Carter, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
SMITH, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment based upon a jury verdict against him in the amount of $74,000. Plaintiff's action was based upon the alleged negligence of defendant as a lawyer in his representation of her in the dissolution of her marriage.
Defendant was a close personal friend of plaintiff and her former husband, Ralph Lange. When the couple reached a decision to terminate their twenty-five year old marriage, each separately approached defendant. He advised each that he would not represent one against the other, but that if they could agree on the terms of their dissolution, he would represent them jointly and prepare the necessary papers to effectuate the dissolution. Plaintiff, ill with lupus eryethemathosis, had herself admitted to the psychiatric ward of a hospital because of depression arising from her marital problems. During this admission she
Page 238
and her husband discussed the terms of the dissolution. A conference was held at the hospital with plaintiff, her husband, and defendant present. At that time the terms of a settlement stipulation were agreed to and subsequently put into final form by defendant. The stipulation and joint petition for dissolution were signed the day plaintiff left the hospital, three days after the hospital conference. The documents were filed the next day and the petition for dissolution was heard by a circuit judge four days later. The judge took the matter under submission and stated that he would not enter a judgment for thirty days. Within that period plaintiff had second thoughts about the settlement provisions of the stipulation and sought legal counsel. 1 The husband also sought legal counsel and defendant withdrew from the case and from any further discussions with the parties concerning it. Upon motion the matter was taken off submission, and 10 months later, following considerable discovery, was disposed of by a settlement more favorable to plaintiff. The degree to which the settlement was more favorable is strongly disputed by the parties plaintiff contending it was substantially more favorable, defendant that it was slightly better. The record does not support a conclusion either way.Plaintiff's charges of negligence were that defendant failed to (1) inquire as to the financial state of Ralph Lange and advise plaintiff; (2) negotiate for a better settlement for plaintiff; (3) advise plaintiff she would get a better settlement if she litigated the matter; and (4) fully and fairly disclose to plaintiff her rights as to marital property, custody and maintenance. Defendant admitted that he did none...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zweifel v. Zenge and Smith, No. WD
...of a prima facie case of legal malpractice, see State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo.App.1985); Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Mo.App.1981); Roehl v. Ralph, 84 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Mo.App.1935)), a difficult problem in cases where a lawyer has negligently failed to......
-
State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
...and injury is a necessary element of plaintiff's cause of action which he bears the burden of establishing. See also Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1981). Roehl v. Ralph, supra, further held "... it was essential that plaintiff show that he actually had a valid defense to th......
-
McConwell v. FMG of Kansas City, Inc., No. 66366
...UPC might have made in the event Whiteaker had retained private counsel at the outset." 382 N.W.2d at 116. In Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1981), where there was no evidence that a husband would have otherwise agreed to a particular settlement agreement, the wife coul......
-
Wastvedt v. Vaaler, No. 870344
...principles of proximate cause and damages are applicable to legal malpractice cases involving a conflict of interest. Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1981); Johnson v. Jones, 103 Idaho 702, 652 P.2d 650 (1982); see Annot. 28 A.L.R.3d 389, 393-94 Thus, in Lange v. Marshall, supra, ......
-
Zweifel v. Zenge and Smith, No. WD
...of a prima facie case of legal malpractice, see State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo.App.1985); Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Mo.App.1981); Roehl v. Ralph, 84 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Mo.App.1935)), a difficult problem in cases where a lawyer has negligently failed to......
-
State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
...and injury is a necessary element of plaintiff's cause of action which he bears the burden of establishing. See also Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1981). Roehl v. Ralph, supra, further held "... it was essential that plaintiff show that he actually had a valid defense to th......
-
McConwell v. FMG of Kansas City, Inc., No. 66366
...UPC might have made in the event Whiteaker had retained private counsel at the outset." 382 N.W.2d at 116. In Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1981), where there was no evidence that a husband would have otherwise agreed to a particular settlement agreement, the wife coul......
-
Wastvedt v. Vaaler, No. 870344
...principles of proximate cause and damages are applicable to legal malpractice cases involving a conflict of interest. Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1981); Johnson v. Jones, 103 Idaho 702, 652 P.2d 650 (1982); see Annot. 28 A.L.R.3d 389, 393-94 Thus, in Lange v. Marshall, supra, ......