Andrews v. Saylor
New Mexico Court of Appeals
80 P.3d 482 (2003)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Susan Scarborough was an attorney employed by Albuquerque Law Clinic and Bruce W. Barrett & Associates (collectively, Scarborough) (defendants). Scarborough represented Deborah Andrews (plaintiff) in Andrews’s divorce. Scarborough prepared the final decree dividing the marital property. The divorce decree did not mention Andrews’s husband’s pension. After Andrews learned she might be entitled to part of her ex-husband’s pension, Andrews hired a new attorney who petitioned for division of the pension account. The judge ruled that the final decree contemplated the division of all property, including the pension. Andrews consulted other attorneys who advised it was unlikely an appeal would be successful. Andrews sued Scarborough, alleging that Scarborough was negligent in failing to explicitly include the pension in the final decree. The court granted summary judgment to Scarborough, finding that the decree did not include the pension, Andrews’s petition to divide the pension would have been successful if a timely appeal had been filed, and the failure to appeal was the proximate cause of Andrews’s loss. On appeal, Andrews argued that the judge improperly decided the question of proximate cause as a matter of law and erroneously held that the successor attorneys’ malpractice proximately caused Andrews’s loss, preventing Scarborough’s initial malpractice from being a proximate cause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alarid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.