Faber v. Herman
731 N.W.2d 1 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff cannot establish the element of causation if they would have suffered the same harm even if their attorney had not acted negligently. A lawyer's negligence is not the cause of a client's damages if the final outcome, despite the lawyer's errors, achieves the client's intended objective.
Facts:
- Steven Faber, represented by attorney Douglas Herman, and his wife Karen Faber agreed to dissolve their marriage.
- The Fabers agreed to divide Steven's Iowa Public Employer’s Retirement System (IPERS) pension equally.
- They incorrectly believed the total value was its 'investment value' of approximately $38,200 and stipulated that Karen would receive an immediate lump-sum payment of $19,100.
- The written stipulation itemized the property division, listing 'IP-ERS (one-half)' with a value of '$19100' for each party.
- IPERS, the pension administrator, informed the parties that an immediate lump-sum payment to a non-member spouse was not permitted under its rules.
- A new Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was drafted and approved by Herman, which divided the future pension benefits using a percentage formula based on years of marriage and service, payable only upon Steven's retirement.
- Herman did not explain to Steven that this new method was different from the lump-sum payment they had stipulated or that the true value of the future benefits would far exceed the 'investment value'.
- Upon taking disability retirement, Steven discovered that Karen would receive a monthly benefit of $962.31, which over time would total significantly more than the $19,100 he had anticipated.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Faber sued his former attorney, Douglas Herman, in Iowa district court for legal malpractice.
- A jury found Herman 70% negligent and Faber 30% negligent, awarding Faber damages for past and future losses.
- The district court denied both parties' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Herman, as appellant, and Faber, as cross-appellant, appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals (the state's intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Herman and reversed the finding of fault against Faber.
- Herman sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa (the state's highest court), which was granted.
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 negligence in advising a client and drafting a divorce stipulation legally cause the client's claimed damages when, despite the negligence, the resulting division of a pension plan achieves the equal split the parties originally intended?
Opinions:
Majority - Cady, Justice
No, the attorney's negligence does not legally cause the client's damages because the client would have suffered the same 'harm' had the attorney not been negligent. Causation, a key element of negligence, requires showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct. Here, Steven Faber's stated goal in the divorce was to divide his pension equally with his wife, Karen. The parties mistakenly used the pension's 'investment value' ($38,200) as its total value, leading them to believe an equal share was $19,100. However, the true present value of a defined-benefit pension is based on actuarial calculations of future payments and is much higher than the lump-sum withdrawal value. Any legally permissible method to achieve an equal division—whether through a percentage-based QDRO or an offset of non-pension assets—would have resulted in Karen receiving a share with a value far greater than $19,100. The final QDRO, though implemented without Faber's full understanding, accomplished the parties' original intent: an equal division of the pension. Therefore, Faber would have been in the same financial position regarding the pension split even if his attorney, Herman, had acted without negligence. The damages Faber claims (the amount Karen receives over $19,100) were caused by the agreement to divide the pension equally, not by Herman's failure to advise him properly on the method of division.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of the 'but-for' causation element in legal malpractice claims. It establishes that a lawyer's clear negligence may not be actionable if it does not lead to a demonstrably worse outcome for the client than what would have occurred otherwise. The decision clarifies that a client's misunderstanding or subsequent regret about an agreed-upon objective (like an equal property split) does not create damages attributable to their lawyer's negligence in executing that objective. This precedent forces malpractice plaintiffs to rigorously prove that the attorney's error, not the client's own strategic choices or valuation mistakes, was the direct cause of their financial loss.
Unlock the full brief for Faber v. Herman