Wasmann

Wasmann v. Seidenberg

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 797·202 Cal. App. 3d 752·248 Cal. Rptr. 744
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1988G003952California1,599 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

Does an attorney have a duty to safeguard property entrusted to him during settlement negotiations by an adverse party? Yes.

I

Plaintiff Kenneth Wasmann sued his ex-wife and others for torts allegedly arising out of a marital dissolution gone awry. One of the named defendants was an attorney who arranged the property settlement on behalf of the wife. As to the causes of action against this attorney, the trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend. Wasmann appeals from the ensuing judgment of dismissal. We reverse.

Wasmann alleged, and we assume for purposes of review, the following facts. Kenneth and Barbara Wasmann married on April 29, 1979, and separated on August 8, 1982. During the summer of 1984 Barbara hired attorney Charles Schwenck to dissolve the marriage. The parties agreed to bifurcate the proceedings, with an immediate dissolution of the marriage contingent on acceptance of a proposed division of marital property, to be “formalized” later. The terms of the property division included Kenneth’s conveyance to Barbara of his community interest in a Newport Beach residence in exchange for $70,000 in cash or a promissory note in that amount…

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.