[DOWNLOAD] "Claire Associates v. Pontikes" by Illinois Appellate Court First District (2Nd Division) Judgment Affirmed " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
![Claire Associates v. Pontikes](https://is4-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Publication/v4/ef/04/9d/ef049de8-f572-73f6-f223-6dba7acb8e20/source/700x700bb.jpg)
eBook details
- Title: Claire Associates v. Pontikes
- Author : Illinois Appellate Court First District (2Nd Division) Judgment Affirmed
- Release Date : January 30, 1986
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
The instant case is a legal malpractice action, brought by John Livaditis on behalf of Claire Associates, a limited partnership for which he was the general partner (hereinafter referred to collectively as appellants), against a number of attorneys (George Pontikes, Stanton Schuman, and Robert Drake, all of the firm of Foss, Schuman & Drake, hereinafter referred to as appellees), who had represented the partnership in certain legal matters prior to the initiation of this litigation. In particular, appellees had represented appellants in a breach of contract action filed in Federal court, in which suit the defendant was Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter Northwestern). In the contract action, it was alleged that Northwestern had agreed to provide financing for the construction of a shopping center complex and then wrongfully defaulted on that obligation. The district court ultimately dismissed the contract action with prejudice. In the malpractice action, appellants asserted that it was the negligent representation provided by appellees which resulted in the dismissal. The circuit court dismissed the malpractice complaint under the authority of section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985. ch. 110, par. 2-615), finding that the malpractice complaint lacked the factual specificity required to state a cause of action. Because we conclude that the underlying Federal contract claim, as pleaded by appellants, would not entitle appellants to any recovery, we are constrained to uphold the circuit court's determination that the complaint did not state an actionable claim of malpractice.