Weiss v. Van Norman

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed summary judgment against Charles Weiss in his legal malpractice action against attorney Robert Van Norman. The court held that any allegedly erroneous advice about terminating a realtor listing agreement was not the proximate cause of Weiss's obligation to pay the commission, because that obligation arose from a preexisting contract. The court also concluded that the alleged advice did not prevent Weiss from negotiating a reduced commission.

Holdings

1. The alleged advice did not proximately cause Weiss's obligation to pay the 6% commission because that obligation was contractual and had been established before Van Norman allegedly gave the advice.
2. Summary judgment for Van Norman was proper because no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding causation, an essential element of Weiss's malpractice claim.

Questions Presented

1. Assuming Van Norman's alleged advice constituted legal malpractice, whether that advice was the proximate cause of Weiss's obligation to pay Kahler's commission.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper when the commission obligation was established by contract before the alleged malpractice.

Disposition

affirmed