Genisman

Genisman v. Carley

Good Law
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780·29 Cal. App. 5th 45
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 2018H042543California2,978 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Elia, J.

*47 In this legal malpractice action, appellant Robert Genisman alleges his former attorneys, Hopkins Carley and Mark Heyl (collectively respondents), were negligent in their representation of him in connection with the 2005 sale of his ownership interest in two private companies (the Transaction). Genisman alleges the Transaction initially was structured as a buyout and respondents restructured it as a redemption *783 without properly advising him regarding that change. As a result, Genisman alleges, he was sued for failing to properly disclose the nature of the Transaction to others. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents on statute of limitations grounds. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2005, Genisman and Pete Cline co-owned ECI Corporation and Coast Capital Mortgage Co., Inc. (Coast Capital). Genisman wanted Cline to buy out his interest in the companies. In connection with the buyout, Genisman sought to be released from the personal guarantees he had made to lenders, including Stanley Blumenfeld. Genisman retained the law firm of Hopkins Carley to represent him in the Transaction. Initial drafts of the Transaction *48 documents structured it as a buyout. At…

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.