Montgomery v. Woolbright
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01879-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2004 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-24-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: William R. Lamb Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Case Number: 99-088-CV1 |
|
| Note: | nature of case: Legal Malpractice | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Wanda B. Montgomery |
RODNEY A. RAY |
||
| Appellee: | Tammy L. Woolbright | DAVID S. VAN EVERY, SR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Legal malpractice - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tammy Woolbright was retained by Wanda Montgomery to represent her in a divorce action against Montgomery’s then-husband. The parties agreed to settle their differences and executed a separation agreement, which Montgomery signed and swore to be true. The agreement was read into the court record, and the chancellor asked Montgomery whether she understood the terms of the agreement and understood that she would be bound to them; Montgomery responded in the affirmative. Thereafter, Montgomery moved to set aside the divorce decree, but her motion was denied. She appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Montgomery then filed a suit against Woolbright, her former attorney who handled the divorce action, asserting that Woolbright was guilty of legal malpractice for negligently failing to adequately prepare for the divorce action. Montgomery further alleges that she was coerced into agreeing to a divorce and property settlement by the tactics of Woolbright. Woolbright filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. Montgomery appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Expert testimony is required in order to prove professional negligence by Woolbright, because the specific negligence Montgomery claims are standard of care issues. Montgomery did not designate, offer or list any expert on the her list of witnesses that could support her allegations of legal malpractice. Therefore, Montgomery’s claim must fail. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
