Kritt

DARLING, HALL & RAE v. Kritt

Good Law
75 Cal. App. 4th 1148·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1999B123957California3,427 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

Appellant Averil J. Kritt, individually, as trustee of the Kritt Living Trust, and as executor of the estate of Sarah Kritt appeals summary judgment entered in favor of Darling, Hall & Rae (DHR) on DHR’s consolidated complaints for attorneys’ fees and summary judgment entered on appellant’s cross-complaint for legal malpractice. As a threshold issue, appellant contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to sua sponte reconsider summary judgment motions it had previously denied. Appellant further argues the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on DHR’s fee claims because DHR’s actions in recovering a worthless $1.1 million judgment and properties rightfully belonging to appellant did not constitute satisfaction of the contingencies specified in the fee agreement. Appellant also contends the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for DHR on his cross-complaint for legal malpractice based on DHR’s recovery of these assets because factual issues exist whether the statute of limitations has expired on his claim, whether DHR owed him a duty of care, and whether he was damaged by DHR’s actions.

We conclude numerous factual issues not resolved in the…

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.