Pawlendzio v. Haddow
148 A.3d 713
| Me. | 2016Background
- Frank Pawlendzio built a spec house individually while his company Oak Ridge Builders was in corporate bankruptcy; Jon Haddow advised him during both matters.
- Frank obtained unsecured loans from three personal lenders (Martin $110,000; King $57,500; Stan $4,000) to finance the house.
- After learning he had undischargeable personal guaranties from the corporate bankruptcy, Frank asked Haddow to protect those three lenders; Haddow prepared after‑the‑fact mortgages and represented the Pawlendzios in their 2008 personal bankruptcy.
- The after‑the‑fact mortgages failed to protect the lenders’ interests; bankruptcy distributions left the lenders largely unpaid, and the Pawlendzios continued some payments for moral/friendship reasons.
- The Pawlendzios sued Haddow (2012) for legal malpractice seeking economic and emotional distress damages; Haddow moved for summary judgment, which the Superior Court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haddow breached the standard of care in failing to protect the three lenders’ interests | Haddow failed to protect unsecured lenders (should have done more or different steps to secure loans) | Haddow provided advice and prepared mortgages; no evidence of breach | Summary judgment for Haddow — plaintiff failed to present admissible expert proof of breach |
| Whether plaintiff established proximate causation between any breach and their damages | Alleged loss of secured status caused economic loss (moral obligation to repay) and emotional distress | No expert tying any specific act/omission to the resulting loss; damages speculative | Held no causal link shown through expert evidence; insufficient for malpractice claim |
| Whether expert testimony was required to establish standard of care and breach | Plaintiff relied on an expert to state Haddow should have warned about potential claims, but did not identify what Haddow should have done | Haddow argued that malpractice claims require expert proof of standard and breach | Court held expert evidence was required and plaintiff’s proffer was insufficient (no specific standard or act identified) |
| Whether any aspect of the alleged malpractice was within ordinary lay knowledge so expert testimony could be unnecessary | Plaintiff did not show the breach was obvious or within lay knowledge | Haddow argued absence of expert proof precludes claim | Court found no basis to excuse expert testimony; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.C., 718 A.2d 186 (Me. 1998) (elements of attorney malpractice: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
- Sohn v. Bernstein, 279 A.2d 529 (Me. 1971) (defines professional negligence standard for attorneys)
- Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 8 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (expert testimony generally required to establish attorney standard of care unless issue is within lay knowledge)
- Pitt v. Frawley, 722 A.2d 358 (Me. 1999) (same principle regarding expert proof in malpractice claims)
- Rainey v. Langen, 998 A.2d 342 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment—view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (summary judgment standard and related procedural guidance)