Grimm v. Fox
33 A.3d 205
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Grimm, pro se plaintiff, appeals from trial court judgment for defendants in a legal malpractice action.
- Defendants served as local counsel in Grimm's dissolution action, culminating in a 2003 divorce judgment.
- Trial court found plaintiff had diminished the marital estate by $2.9 million and ordered $100,000 of wife’s attorney's fees.
- Grimm appealed; Appellate Court held the $2.9 million finding was harmless and affirmed in part, reversed in part regarding fees.
- Grimm later sued for legal malpractice, relying on the Supreme Court’s Grimm v. Grimm language but failed to disclose an expert witness.
- Motions for summary judgment and responsive objections were filed; pretrial in limine motions and a renewed motion for judgment were granted at the start of trial, precluding evidence of malpractice and granting judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimm's language from Grimm v. Grimm suffices as expert evidence of malpractice | Grimm argues the court's critical language shows expert-level breach of standard of care. | Fox and firm contend the language is not expert evidence of malpractice and requires expert testimony. | No; expert testimony required to prove standard of care absent obvious gross negligence. |
| Whether the trial court correctly granted judgment the day after filing | Plaintiff contends the timing undermined due process and full consideration. | Defendants argue renewal was proper and discretion allowed due to lack of admissible proof. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in granting judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimm v. Grimm, 276 Conn. 377 (2005) (court discussed records/briefing deficiencies and their impact on review of the $2.9 million finding)
- Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410 (2003) (Appellate opinion on expert necessity when trial is before judge vs. jury)
- Paul v. Gordon, 58 Conn.App. 724 (2000) (exception to expert testimony requirement for gross neglect by attorney)
- Moore v. Crone, 114 Conn.App. 443 (2009) (summary judgment when lack of expert proof; omissions/briefing issues)
- Pagan v. Gonzalez, 113 Conn.App. 135 (2009) (exception to expert testimony limited to essentially nothing done; specifics discussed)
- Dixon v. Bromson & Reiner, 95 Conn.App. 294 (2006) (observations about record adequacy not conclusively showing negligence)
- St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc., 84 Conn.App. 88 (2004) (flexible approach allowing lay understanding of certain professional failures)