Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd.
150 Idaho 521
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Pamela Joerger Stephen sued Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., Gatewood, and Sallaz for legal malpractice in a divorce/estate matter.
- District court found Gatewood liable for malpractice (inquiry into Pamela's mental status; valuation of Crescent Rim property) and Sallaz & Gatewood liable as the firm.
- Pamela was undervalued on Crescent Rim property due to lack of information about Stephen's $500,000 valuation; Gatewood failed to inform and advise.
- Gatewood allegedly failed to investigate payoff of a $28,000 judgment lien, which affected the settlement.
- Damages were reduced from $41,500 to $27,435 due to a prior $14,065 payment under the settlement; discretionary costs and attorney fees were denied.
- On appeal, both sides challenge liability, damages, and fees; the Supreme Court affirms the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malpractice judgment against Gatewood supported by evidence? | Stephen asserts Gatewood breached duties and caused damages. | Gatewood contends no breach or causation established. | Yes; substantial evidence supports Gatewood's breach and causation. |
| Are Pamela's incapacity claims barred by estoppel or immunity? | Pamela argues claims stand despite capacity concerns. | Appellants rely on estoppel/immunity to bar claims. | The Court declines to address these issues as the malpractice finding stands independent. |
| Can Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd. be liable for Gatewood's malpractice? | Firm liable under corporate/partnership liability for acts of its agents. | Firm argues no licensed entity to practice law and limited liability. | Yes; under Idaho corporate statute, Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd. is liable for Gatewood's malpractice. |
| Is Sallaz personally liable for the malpractice judgment? | Pamela seeks personal liability for Sallaz. | Sallaz contends no personal relationship or liability. | Moot; judgment already paid; no practical effect from ruling. |
| Did district court err in damages and fees rulings? | Pamela challenges the reduction of damages and denial of costs/fees. | Sallaz challenges fee denial; court correctly computed damages and denied discretionary costs/fees. | Damages and costs calculations affirmed; no award of discretionary costs; no appellate attorney fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borah v. McCandless, 147 Idaho 73 (2009) (scope of appellate review on factual findings and breach of duty standard)
- Harrigfeld v. Hancock, 140 Idaho 134 (2004) (elements of legal malpractice; duty, breach, causation, damages)
- McGrew v. McGrew, 139 Idaho 559 (2003) (valuation and settlement issues in divorce context; cannot unilaterally alter distribution)
- Goodson v. Nez Perce County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 133 Idaho 851 (2000) (mootness principles and discretionary review as to issues without live controversy)
- City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656 (2009) (commercial transaction ground for attorney fee awards under I.C. § 12-120(3) not dispositive without proper fee request)