This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The plaintiffs sold a parcel of real estate in 1984, which later led to a dispute over water rights. The buyer claimed the deed did not sever water rights from the land, resulting in litigation. The plaintiffs prevailed in the New Mexico Supreme Court. Subsequently, they sued their attorneys for legal malpractice, alleging negligence in drafting the deed and providing incorrect advice on the statute of limitations for a related claim (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Turner v. Bassett, 2005-NMSC-009: The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the deed did not convey water rights to the buyer (para 2).
- District Court, August 30, 2005: The trial court dismissed the claim against one attorney, Atkinson, on the basis that the statute of limitations had expired (para 3).
- District Court, (N/A): The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant law firm, Sheehan, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact in the legal malpractice claim (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that the defendant law firm failed to negate the elements of legal malpractice and relied solely on the prior Supreme Court decision to argue there was no breach of duty. They contended that the drafting attorney should have included an express exclusion of water rights in the deed or warned them of the consequences (paras 6, 8).
- Appellee (Defendant law firm): Asserted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the drafting attorney’s negligence. They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in the prior case confirmed the deed was legally sufficient, negating any breach of duty (paras 4, 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the defendant law firm establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by negating the element of breach of duty in the legal malpractice claim?
- Did the plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence to rebut the defendant’s prima facie case and establish a genuine issue of material fact?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant law firm (para 20).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Wechsler and Robinson JJ. concurring):
- The court reviewed the trial court’s summary judgment order de novo, applying the standard that summary judgment is proper when material facts are undisputed, and only legal issues remain (para 5).
- The elements of legal malpractice include employment of the attorney, breach of a reasonable duty, and loss caused by the breach. The court focused on whether the drafting attorney breached a duty of care (para 7).
- The Supreme Court’s decision in the prior case established that the deed was legally sufficient to sever water rights, negating any breach of duty by the drafting attorney. The plaintiffs’ reliance on dictum from the prior case and out-of-state authorities did not establish a genuine issue of material fact (paras 9-10, 18).
- The plaintiffs failed to provide admissible evidence, such as expert testimony, to show that the drafting attorney’s actions fell below the standard of care at the time. Without such evidence, the court concluded there was no breach of duty (paras 18-19).
- The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that litigation costs alone could establish damages in the absence of a breach of duty (paras 12-16).
- The court held that the defendant law firm successfully negated the element of breach, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this prima facie case. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate (paras 19-20).