Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dickerson v. Murray

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex

February 3, 2015

Irene Dickerson, Plaintiff,
v.
Julianne E. Murray, Esq, Murray Law LLC, Defendants.

Date Submitted: October 17, 2014

Upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Two.

Herbert W. Mondros, Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, Attorney for Defendants

Patrick Scanlon, Law Offices of Patrick Scanlon, Attorney for Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD F. STOKES, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is presently before the Court on the motion of Julianne E. Murray, Esquire, and Murray Law (collectively, "Defendants") for dismissal of Count Two. Defendants move this Court for an order dismissing Count Two of the Complaint[1] pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12.[2] Irene Dickerson's ("Plaintiff") claims arise out of the alleged negligent provision of legal services.[3]Defendants represented Plaintiff in the underlying transaction in which Defendants drafted a note resulting in the mortgage of the Plaintiff's property.[4]

Plaintiff asserts during the course of the representation Defendants were negligent and violated a "conflict of interest" in providing legal services.[5] In response, Defendants move this Court to dismiss Count Two contending Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and subject matter jurisdiction is lacking with respect to Count Two.[6]

For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Two is GRANTED.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

According to the plaintiff, on May 28, 2013, Defendants represented Plaintiff in a transaction effectuating a mortgage in order to provide a third-party the funds to purchase a property.[7] Defendants prepared a note to enable Plaintiff to mortgage her property for the benefit of Matthew Chasanov, Plaintiff's grandson, and his wife, Lindsay Chasanov (collectively the "Chasanovs").[8]

The note, drafted by Defendants, did not include many of the standard provisions typical of a mortgage transaction.[9] For example, the note lacked clauses for acceleration, amortization, attorney's fees in the event of default, interest, and the signatures of the Chasanovs.[10] The note was signed only by Plaintiff and her husband, Mathew Dickerson, resulting in their personal liability in the event of default.[11]

Plaintiff agreed to complete the mortgage transaction with the understanding that the Chasanovs would make her mortgage payments.[12] Upon completion of the transaction, the Chasanovs purchased a home together as husband and wife.[13] Shortly thereafter, the Chasanovs defaulted after making only one payment on the note resulting in damages of approximately $148, 000.[14]Plaintiff subsequently filed the present suit against the Defendants.[15]

Defendants' instant motion to dismiss was filed August 28, 2014.[16] Plaintiff timely filed a response on September 24, 2014.[17] On October 3, 2014 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was heard and later Memoranda of Law were provided to the Court regarding the dismissal of Count Two on October 13, 2014.[18] For the reasons explained below, the Court will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.