Facts

In July 2001, Lana Peters separated from her husband. Her divorce attorney, unnamed, negotiated the settlement that included alimony and other payments.

In October 2002, the stipulated judgment on the divorce was entered. Soon thereafter, though, Peters became unsatisfied with the duration and amount of her spousal support and went to another attorney in September 2004 to discuss her options regarding her spousal support and other issues, as well.

Based on that advice, Peters then sued her former divorce attorney for legal malpractice, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Peters claimed her divorce lawyer had given her poor legal advice, leading her to accept a settlement that included only ten years of alimony even though under the California Family Code, based on the long duration of her marriage, she would be entitled to alimony until death, remarriage or a court order.

Peters asserted that her previous attorney had told her ten years was the maximum length of alimony support she could get under state law.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The attorney challenged Peters' claims, arguing that the standard of care was met at all times. The attorney also claimed Peters was fully and properly informed of all of her legal rights, and that she agreed to the ten-year limitation in return for other negotiated benefits, such as being maintained on her ex-husband's health insurance policy, living in her ex-husband's home until her son went to college, and having her ex-husband pay for her son's college tuition.

The attorney further asserted that Peters' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and claimed that Peters failed to mitigate her damages by failing to modify the stipulated judgment.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $499,999 (the policy limits). Defendant offered $25,000 as per CCP Section 998.

Damages

Peters sought between $500,000 and $900,000 in loss of spousal support based on an additional ten years of additional support she wanted at $75,000 per year.

Result

The case was scheduled for two weeks, but was bifurcated and went to trial first on the statute of limitations. The jury subsequently determined that the statute of limitations had indeed lapsed, thereby barring Peters' claims. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the defense.

Deliberation

40 minutes

Poll

12-0

Length

three days (of bifurcated trial)