reversing the grant of summary judgment to an attorney who failed to honor an assignment, noting the assignee’s theory of liability was based on a claimed assignment of the settlement proceeds and not the unsigned letter of protection
How later courts described this case
- reversing the grant of summary judgment to an attorney who failed to honor an assignment, noting the assignee’s theory of liability was based on a claimed assignment of the settlement proceeds and not the unsigned letter of protection
- evidence did not constitute substantial evidence of present intent to deceive because the "evidence is speculative as to her intent at the time the alleged promise, if any, was made"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur with respect to Part I of the main opinion; as to Part II of the main opinion, I concur only in the result.
I would affirm the trial court. Therefore, I concur in the affirmance of the summary judgment entered on the fraud claims and I dissent as to the reversal of the summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim.