Carbone v. Tierney

864 A.2d 308 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P entered into an agreement with his son where P agreed to sell his home and give the son, Daniel, the proceeds from the sale. Daniel, in turn, would sell his home, combine the proceeds from the two sales and purchase a bigger home, large enough to accommodate Daniel's family, as well as P and his laboratory. P and his son further agreed that 'if this thing didn't work out,' Daniel would return P's money. P's home was sold, and Daniel collected $ 69,812.41 at the closing. Daniel's home had not yet been sold so P moved into their basement. He stored equipment in their garage and put the rest of the equipment in storage. P couldn't take the living situation and asked Daniel for his money back. Daniel had used it to pay other bills. P received only $550 per month in social security benefits and had no other resources; he remained in the basement. Daniel and Lisa purchased a new home which included an apartment for P. It also had a small shed in the yard that was not large enough to accommodate P's laboratory. P purchased a box trailer, placed it on a friend's property and set up his laboratory in the trailer. P did not like the new place and eventually moved. P hired D to represent him in an action against Daniel. Tierney agreed to represent P on a contingency fee basis. The first complaint was dismissed when D failed to allege an amount in controversy sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. D did not appeal, which resulted in the dismissal of a second complaint filed in the same court. D then filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, and it too was dismissed because D had failed to establish federal jurisdiction in the New Hampshire federal court. D then filed in state court, but a paperwork mix-up resulted in dismissal. D failed to subsequently inquire why the matter was dismissed. Lisa, the daughter in law, filed for bankruptcy, D failed to oppose the homestead and the discharge of the debt Lisa owed to P. P sued D for malpractice. P filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and damages. It granted the motion for liability, but not for damages. The jury returned a verdict awarding $ 69,812.41 in damages for the loss of his residence and laboratory. It also awarded $ 105,000 for the loss of P’s laboratory equipment. D appealed.