Chumley v. White
80 So. 3d 39
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Chumleys sued in Caddo Parish for legal malpractice against White related to opposing three summary-judgment motions in a prior real-estate dispute.
- White, domiciled in and practicing in Bossier Parish, moved to dismiss venue as improper under Article 42, arguing venue should be in Bossier.
- Chumleys claimed venue was proper in Caddo under Article 74 (offenses/quasi-offenses) or Article 76 (contracts) because wrongful conduct and damages occurred there.
- Trial court tentatively followed the Clarendon rule that venue lies where the attorney’s office is located; sustained White’s improper-venue exception.
- Chumleys amended pleadings; White reasserted improper-venue exception and added no-cause-of-action for breach-of-contract claim; subsequent rulings transferred or remanded
- This appeal concerns whether venue is proper in Caddo under Article 74 in a legal-malpractice action involving conduct in Caddo and damages sustained there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is venue proper in Caddo under Article 74? | Chumleys: wrongful conduct occurred in Caddo; damages were sustained there. | White: venue proper in Bossier where his office and decisions occurred. | Yes; venue proper in Caddo under Article 74. |
| Where did the wrongful conduct occur for venue purposes under Article 74? | Wrongful acts occurred in Caddo during the hearing and record formation in court. | Wrongful conduct occurred in Bossier where defense strategy was devised. | Wrongful conduct occurred in Caddo; venue appropriate there. |
| Should Clarendon-based reasoning control this case over Frisard/Chambers distinctions? | Clarendon does not preclude Caddo as proper venue; focus on where in-court acts occurred. | Clarendon supports venue in the attorney’s office parish (Bossier) for certain malpractice bases. | Clarendon-based framework not controlling here; Article 74 venue found proper in Caddo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. v. Carter, 902 So.2d 1142 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (location of attorney's office can fix venue for malpractice involving failure to file/plead in court)
- Chambers v. LeBlanc, 598 So.2d 337 (La. 1992) (wrongful conduct occurred in parish where business conducted or where suit filed; dicta on alternate venues)
- Frisard v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 837 So.2d 706 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (alternative venues in legal malpractice based on where defense filings occur)
- Johnson v. Tschirn, 635 So.2d 254 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (wrongful conduct occurred where documents were to be filed; in New Orleans here)
- Belwise Aquaculture Systems, Inc. v. Lemke, 904 So.2d 940 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2005) (venue for malpractice based on improperly drafted petition; location of drafting affects venue)
- Stovall v. Carimi, 667 So.2d 1107 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (wrongful conduct not located where underlying dispute was; venue depends on where conduct occurred)
- Cacamo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 764 So.2d 41 (La. 2000) (venue may supplement general provision; plaintiff may choose proper venue)
- Land v. Vidrine, 62 So.3d 36 (La. 2011) (choice of venue is a gateway consideration separate from merits)