Trembath v. Digardi

California Court of Appeal Dec 12, 1974 No. Civ. 33149Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A tort action against a third party for inducing the breach of an attorney's contingent fee contract is distinct from the attorney's contract claim against the client, and the statute of limitations for such a tort action accrues on the date of the breach.

Issues

Does a cause of action for tortious inducement of breach of a contingent fee contract accrue at the time of the breach or upon the occurrence of the contingency?
Is a tort action for inducing breach of an attorney-client contract subject to the same limitations on recovery as a contract action against the client?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the tort action against the third party is distinct from the contract right against the client, and that the attorney’s cause of action upon the former right accrues, as would any other tort action for inducement of breach of contract, no later than the date of the breach which has been tortiously induced.”

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

This is an action by an attorney against other attorneys for damages allegedly caused by the latter’s wrongfully inducing breach, by the first attorney’s client, of his contingent fee contract. Defendants-respondents demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the statute

[836]

of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. 1) had run. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

The complaint alleges that: James Gordon died April 10, 1970, in an accident in which he was electrocuted; he left his widow and three minor children; on the day of his death, Mrs. Gordon and plaintiff entered into a written agreement by which she employed him to prosecute her claim for damages for the wrongful death of her husband, and agreed to pay, from any sum received, his costs and one-third of the recovery if settlement was made before a trial date was set, or 40 percent of any recovery after that date; plaintiff did perform services and advanced expenses in the amount of $143.65. It is also alleged that beginning April 14, 1970, defendants, knowing of the contract with plaintiff, made false representations to Mrs. Gordon about plaintiff’s ability, in order to persuade her to employ them in place of plaintiff. Allegedly, these activities culminated in the client’s discharging plaintiff as her attorney on April 28, 1970; defendants thereupon prosecuted her case against a number of defendants, and “between July 24, 1972 and October 21, 1972,” received $400,000 and costs in settlements and judgments. The complaint now before us was filed January 4, 1973.

it is undisputed that an action in tort lies for wrongful inducement of breach of contract. This rule is fully applicable to induced breach of contract to pay a contingent fee

(Herron

State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.,

56 Cal.2d 202 [14 Cal.Rptr. 294, 363 P.2d 310]). Nor is there dispute that the applicable limitation period is two years, as fixed by Code of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1

Trembath v. Digardi

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief