Ruffalo

Ruffalo v. Patterson

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1098·234 Cal. App. 3d 341·285 Cal. Rptr. 647·91 Daily Journal DAR 11885·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7714
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 1991B056202California914 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danielson, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Helen H. Ruffalo appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Paul S. Patterson, in an action for damages for legal malpractice. We reverse the judgment.

Facts

In her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged she retained defendant to represent her in a proceeding for dissolution of her marriage; defendant knew or should have known she and her husband had prosecuted a prior dissolution proceeding wherein an interlocutory order was entered dividing their community assets, and plaintiff had used the property awarded her to purchase in her own name property located at 14130 Fonseca in La Mirada (the Fonseca property); defendant knew or should have known she and her husband resumed living together following entry of the interlocutory judgment, but did not reconcile; defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in rendering his legal services, in that he instructed her to characterize the Fonseca property as community property in her answers to interrogatories and deposition questions; in the course of the dissolution proceeding she fired defendant and retained new counsel, who raised the issue of plaintiff’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.