This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P invested in some real estate and lost money. She blamed D, her lawyer, and Potter (D), her banker. P sued Ds for malpractice. The judge directed a verdict for Potter, and by special verdict, the jury found in favor of D with respect to a loan refinance. The jury found D’s negligence was 30% as compared to P’s negligence which was 70%. The judge applied comparative fault and found that P takes nothing from D. P appealed. The court sua sponte brought up the issues of comparative fault on the appeal.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.