An attorney cannot be held liable for malpractice as a matter of law simply because he relied on another attorney’s faulty title search, the South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled. The appeals court overturned a circuit court’s finding that Mount Pleasant attorney Stanley Alexander was liable for malpractice and remanded the case for trial.
Collins
Alexander’s client, Amber Johnson, had initially retained Charleston attorney Mario Inglese to close a real estate transaction in North Charleston. Due to a scheduling conflict, however, Inglese was unable to conduct the closing and Alexander acted as the closing attorney. Inglese had contracted with Charleston attorney Charles Feeley to perform a title search on the property, and Alexander relied on the title search that Inglese had provided, which indicated that all taxes due on the property had been paid.
In reality, however, the seller had not paid all her taxes, and the Charleston County delinquent tax collector seized the property from the seller and sold it at a tax sale. As a result, Johnson sued Alexander, Inglese, and Inglese’s law firm for malpractice. The circuit court granted her motion for summary judgment against Alexander, finding as a matter of law Alexander breached the duty that he owed to Johnson and caused her damages.
The appeals court reversed that ruling, finding that the circuit court had focused its inquiry on the wrong issue — whether an attorney conducting a title search on the property should have discovered the delinquent taxes. That would be the correct focus, the court said, to determine the liability of the attorney who performed the title search, which in this case was Feeley, not Alexander.
For Alexander’s liability, the court said, the issue was not whether a reasonable attorney conducting a title search on the property would have found the information, but whether Alexander acted reasonably under the existing circumstances in relying on Feeley’s title search.
“Feeley is the attorney who failed to discover the contents of the public record. If Feeley was negligent, Feeley is liable. For Alexander to be liable, however, his reliance on Feeley, or his decision not to do the title search himself, must have been negligent,” Chief Judge John Few wrote for a unanimous court.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Alexander, the court said there was a genuine question of fact whether he acted with reasonable care in relying on Feeley’s title search, and as such the question needed to be submitted to a jury at trial.
Johnson had also argued that Alexander was liable to her because Feeley was Alexander’s agent, but the appeals court found that the circuit court made no findings related to agency, and as such the issue would have to be dealt with on remand.
Joel Collins of Collins & Lacy and Robert Goings, both of Columbia, represented Alexander. Justin Kahn of Charleston and Mary Leigh Arnold of Mt. Pleasant represented Johnson.
Goings
Goings said that given the disputed factual issues about whether Alexander acted as a reasonable, prudent attorney would in closing the sale, summary judgment would not have been appropriate.
“Stan Alexander followed the appropriate standard of care in conducting this real estate closing, and we look forward to being able to present the facts to a jury.” Goings said.
The six-page decision is Johnson v. Alexander (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-026-14). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan