Melany Kotlarek

The purchaser of a property who after the title agency prepared the settlement statements instead elected to proceed with the closing without the title agency filed a third-party claim against the title agency when the purchaser later discovered a potentially fraudulent signature in a prior deed in the chain of title.  The Court granted the title company summary judgment holding that a title search does not include the rendering of an opinion as to the validity of the title and the title agency was no longer under any independent duty to disburse funds for title insurance that were set forth in the settlement statements when the purchaser elected to forego the closing.

Less than five months after legal malpractice case filed, all claims dismissed against attorney and law firm based on the legal malpractice statute of repose and statute of limitations.

In a contentious legal malpractice case alleging numerous allegations about representation, obtained summary judgment and dismissal  of all claims in favor of attorney and her law firm.

Appellate court affirmed dismissal of legal malpractice case against counsel based upon finding that criminal indictment was sufficient to put plaintiff on notice of potential claims.

Obtained dismissal of all claims alleged against title company as court held that the plaintiff’s claim as a third-party beneficiary as to the title company had no support in Ohio law.

Summary judgment granted in favor of an attorney and his law firm. The attorney was accused of legal malpractice regarding his representation of his client who was the wife that had a business dispute with her husband’s family-owned business. The wife claimed over six figures in damages against the attorney and filed the legal malpractice suit as the power of attorney for her husband. There was little case law as to the applicability of the attorney-client relationship when a power of attorney is involved in this scenario and also where the wife was trying to state claims that as a spouse she had standing and privity to bring the legal malpractice claim and how the statute of limitations applied as a result. The trial court initially agreed that the case was barred by the statute of limitations granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of our clients. However, this was then reversed and remanded as the appellate court ruled there were sufficient allegations in the pleadings to state a claim. After discovery, Andy and Melany won again as they filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the wife lacked standing as a spouse and also under the power of attorney to bring her claim.