2175 Lemoine Ave. v. Finco, Inc.
640 A.2d 346, 272 N.J. Super. 478 (1994)
Rule of Law:
To recover damages in a legal malpractice action, a client must prove that the attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of their loss, which includes demonstrating that the underlying transaction, had it been properly handled, could have been legally structured to achieve the desired outcome without violating statutory prohibitions.
Facts:
- 2175 Lemoine Avenue Corporation owned real property at 2175 Lemoine Avenue, Fort Lee, New Jersey.
- Germano Valle, acting through Finco, Inc., negotiated and arranged financing for 2175 Lemoine Avenue Corporation from Morgran Stiftung through AmEuro Capital Corporation.
- As compensation for arranging this financing, Finco received an option to purchase a fifty percent interest in the Lemoine Avenue property and a one-half of one percent interest in the 2175 Finco partnership.
- Karen N. Wattiker, an attorney, negotiated and structured the loan transaction, prepared all the documents, and handled the closing, including drafting the option agreement.
- Neither Germano Valle nor Finco, Inc. held a New Jersey Real Estate Broker's license at the time they performed activities related to arranging the loan and receiving compensation.
- Ms. Wattiker was a 50% shareholder of AmEuro Capital Corporation, which was the borrower of funds from Morgran and then lent money to 2175 Lemoine Avenue Corporation, a company owned by her husband, William Wattiker.
- Ms. Wattiker did not advise Finco or Valle of the potential legal difficulties or illegality of their compensation structure under the New Jersey Real Estate License Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff 2175 Lemoine Avenue Corporation initiated an action in the Law Division (trial court) seeking a declaratory judgment that an option granted to Finco and an interest in a partnership were void and unenforceable.
- Defendants Finco, Inc. and Germano Valle denied allegations and filed a third-party complaint against attorney Karen N. Wattiker and her husband, William Wattiker, alleging legal malpractice and other claims.
- The Law Division (trial court) declared Finco's option and partnership interest invalid because they violated the New Jersey Real Estate License Act.
- The trial court dismissed Finco and Valle's claims against Ms. Wattiker and William Wattiker for intentional interference, prima facie tort, conspiracy, and fraud.
- The Law Division (trial court) found Ms. Wattiker guilty of legal malpractice.
- The trial court awarded Finco damages in the sum of $111,283 against Ms. Wattiker for legal malpractice.
- Ms. Wattiker appealed the portion of the judgment awarding Finco damages for legal malpractice to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
- Finco and Valle cross-appealed from the damages portion, contending the trial court erred in failing to award them attorneys fees, and initially cross-appealed dismissal of other claims against Ms. Wattiker and William Wattiker, but later withdrew these latter claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's legal malpractice for failing to advise a client about a licensing statute proximately cause damages when the underlying transaction, for which the client sought compensation, was illegal and void ab initio, and the client fails to prove a legally permissible alternative structure for that compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Michels, P.J.A.D.
No, an attorney's legal malpractice for failing to advise a client about a licensing statute does not proximately cause damages when the underlying transaction, for which the client sought compensation, was illegal and void ab initio, and the client fails to prove by expert testimony that a legally permissible alternative structure for that compensation existed and would have been implemented by the parties. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Ms. Wattiker was guilty of legal malpractice, applying the standard that an attorney must possess and exercise the reasonable knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by other members of the profession, as established in McCullough v. Sullivan. Ms. Wattiker breached this duty by failing to know and advise Finco/Valle about the New Jersey Real Estate License Act (N.J.S.A. 45:15-1 et seq.) and by drafting an option that was invalid on its face as consideration for unlicensed brokerage services. The court also noted that her actions implicated Rules of Professional Conduct concerning conflicts of interest (RPC 1.7, 1.8, 1.9) and communication with represented persons (RPC 4.2). However, the court reversed the damage award because Finco failed to prove the essential element of proximate cause. Citing Gautam v. De Luca and Lamb v. Barbour, the court reiterated that an attorney is only responsible for a client's loss if that loss is proximately caused by the attorney's negligence, meaning the negligent conduct was a substantial contributing factor. The trial court's assumption that the transaction could have been legally structured was deemed 'pure conjecture and surmise' because Finco failed to present any evidence or expert testimony demonstrating how the granting of the option and partnership interest could have been legally structured to comply with the Real Estate License Act. The burden is on the client to show injuries proximately caused by the breach of duty, and this cannot be satisfied by 'conjecture, surmise or suspicion,' as held in Long v. Landy. Furthermore, even if a legal alternative could hypothetically exist, Finco presented no proof that William Wattiker and Finco were willing or able to implement such a structure, such as forming a partnership from inception to qualify for an owner's exemption or Finco simply paying for the option.
Analysis:
This case underscores the stringent requirement for proving proximate causation in legal malpractice claims, particularly when the underlying transaction involves illegal activity. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for a lost benefit if that benefit would have been illegal to obtain, even with perfect legal advice. The ruling places a substantial burden on clients to not only prove attorney negligence but also to demonstrate, typically through expert testimony, that a legally permissible alternative existed and would have been pursued, thereby preventing malpractice plaintiffs from using a lawyer's error to legitimize an otherwise unlawful gain. This case limits recovery to scenarios where the client was deprived of a lawful opportunity.
