Chang v. Smith

On April 13, 1993, our client, David Chang employed and retained attorney David Smith for the specific purpose of advising him in connection with the purchase of a residential property. The following day, our client agreed to buy single family residence located at 21311 Bellaire Road, Vista, Westmoreland. Smith failed to advise Chang at the time that the purchase agreement was entered into that the Otts were required by the Westmoreland Health and Safety Code Section 17953 to deliver a Soil Investigation Report before the sale of the property was concluded. The Otts never delivered such a report, and on May 27, 1993, our client took possession of

. . .
ion in Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal. 3d 195, 201 (1971), required that the question of whether actual injury has occurred is a "matter of law" which may only be resolved if the facts are undisputed and that if the plaintiff was compelled to "incur and pay attorney's fees and legal costs and expenditures" as the result of the malpractice, then in such instance, the it would be up to the court to determine if the requisite harm actually occurred because of the attorney's subsequent negligence. So, Chang has a good argument that the one year statute of limitations period was tolled between August 1, 1994 to September 17, 1996, during which time Smith led him to believe that he had legally viable method for recovering his method against the Otts. In our case, the dates are critical factors because they are "undisputed facts" and as such, they become things attorney Smith could not use in his favor. There is no question of fact regarding when the purchase contract for the house was entered into or when the escrow closed because Smith alleged these facts himself, under penalty of perjury, in his sworn and verified complaint against the Otts. There is also no dispute about when our client rehired Smith to take the case against the Otts, beca
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Procedure Section, Smith Smith, Code Section, Budd Nixen, Cal Rptr, Chang's Smith, Civil Procedure, Chang Otts, Investigation Report, Otts Smith, statute limitations, actual injury, august 1 1994, 1 1994, august 1, soil report, escrow closed, civil procedure, september 17, 17 1996, september 17 1996, code civil, code civil procedure, investigative soil report, soil investigation report,
Approximate Word count = 2728
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Chang v. Smith