Vincent v. DeVries
72 A.3d 886, 193 Vt. 574, 2013 VT 34 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action based on negligence where the underlying client interest is primarily economic, such as the threatened loss of a home. Economic damages based on a settlement amount are recoverable if the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence that the settlement was reasonable.
Facts:
- Leland Vincent, an 82-year-old legally blind man, and his sister signed a contract to sell their home to buyers for $52,000.
- Vincent later asserted that the buyers had misrepresented the document, telling him it was not an agreement to sell his property.
- Prior to any lawsuit, the buyers offered to rescind the contract in exchange for a $15,000 payment from Vincent.
- Vincent's attorney, Douglas DeVries, advised him not to accept the settlement offer.
- After his sister died, Vincent refused to proceed with the sale of the home.
- Following unsuccessful litigation in which a court ordered the sale, Vincent, represented by new counsel, entered into a settlement agreement with the buyers.
- The settlement required Vincent to pay the buyers $103,000 ($68,000 plus $35,000 for their attorney's fees) in exchange for voiding the court's order and allowing him to keep his home.
Procedural Posture:
- Buyers sued Leland Vincent in superior court seeking specific performance of a real estate contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the buyers, ordering Vincent to sell the property, after his attorney, Douglas DeVries, failed to timely raise defenses.
- The trial court's judgment was twice affirmed on appeal by the Vermont Supreme Court.
- Vincent then filed a legal malpractice action against DeVries in superior court.
- A jury found for Vincent, awarding him $103,000 in economic damages and $80,000 in emotional distress damages.
- DeVries filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the damage awards, which the trial court denied.
- DeVries, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to the Vermont Supreme Court, with Vincent as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a legal malpractice action, 1) does the threatened loss of a client's home constitute a special circumstance permitting the recovery of emotional distress damages, and 2) is a settlement agreement sufficient evidence of economic damages if it was negotiated at arm's length and approved by a court?
Opinions:
Majority - Robinson, J.
No, the threatened loss of a client's home is not a special circumstance permitting recovery of emotional distress damages, but yes, a settlement agreement negotiated at arm's length and approved by a court is sufficient evidence for a jury to find economic damages. The court held that emotional distress damages are generally unavailable in negligence cases without physical impact or substantial bodily injury. While exceptions exist for matters that are deeply personal, such as loss of liberty or child custody, the threatened loss of a home is considered a primarily economic interest. Because Vincent's ultimate loss was monetary—the amount paid in the settlement—it does not fall within the narrow exceptions. Regarding economic damages, the court found that a plaintiff must show the settlement paid to rectify the malpractice was reasonable. Here, evidence that the settlement was negotiated at arm's-length by counsel, approved by Vincent's guardians, and approved by the probate court was sufficient for a jury to conclude it was reasonable, even if the amount exceeded the property's assessed value.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the majority rule that limits legal malpractice damages to pecuniary losses, explicitly categorizing the threatened loss of a home as an economic interest rather than a deeply personal one. It clarifies that in Vermont, the emotional distress associated with property disputes, however profound, is not compensable in a negligence-based malpractice claim. The ruling also provides a practical standard for proving economic damages based on a settlement, emphasizing procedural reasonableness (arm's-length negotiation, judicial approval) over a strict valuation of the underlying asset. This lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs seeking to recover settlement costs in future malpractice cases.
