Bennett

Bennett v. McCall

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 122·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1018·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 268·93 Daily Journal DAR 12605·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7441
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 4, 1993A059534California1,778 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Plaintiff and appellant August W. Bennett appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents John McCall, Jr., and Riede, Rosenberg, McCall & Cahill in appellant’s action for legal malpractice. Appellant contends the trial court erred in ruling his action was barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6.) We affirm.

Facts

In January 1985 appellant retained respondents to represent him in dissolution proceedings. The matter went to trial after the parties were unable to agree on a division of property. On June 18, 1986, appellant entered into a binding settlement agreement in open court resolving the issues between him and his former wife. Appellant agreed to the settlement agreement as recited by the trial court, and McCall recommended the settlement to appellant. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, all of the community property was divided.

On June 19 appellant reviewed the value of the assets assigned to him and his former wife and determined he had been underpaid. McCall advised him that the division of property was consistent with the settlement agreement and was beneficial to him. However, because of appellant’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.