Divorce Litigant’s Malpractice Claim Barred
Puder v. Beuchel
A Divorce litigant’s malpractice claim is barred by their acknowledgment of the settlement and expressed satisfaction with their attorney at the time of settlement.
In a split decision the New Jersey Supreme Court in Puder v. Beuchel, decided June 7, 2005, held that a divorce litigant could not subsequently sue her divorce attorney for alleged deficiencies in a settlement which she had acknowledged as being fair and acceptable.
The Court observed that the public policy of this State strongly encourages the settlement of marital cases. The majority of the Court then ruled that after testifying that the settlement was fair and acceptable when it was placed on the record, the plaintiff was barred form subsequently suing her divorce attorney for malpractice.
The Court held that “a client should not be permitted to settle a case for less than its worth….and then seek to recoup the difference in a malpractice action” against her attorney.
Reader interactions
6 Replies to “Divorce Litigant’s Malpractice Claim Barred”
Comments are closed.
Can a litigant sue his or her attorney if he/she caused the litigant to spend excessive amounts of money pursuing the divorce issues? And upon settling the divorce based on facts presented by the attorney which were not specifically etched in the divorce decree?
Or that the Litiguant had to expend additional monies to pursue his rights under the divorce decree agreement which the opposite party tried to block access to the marital home to retrieve personal belongings were not enforceable
after the divorce settlement?
Using all of the above can’t then a Litigant sue his or her attorney?
Your reply is appreciated.
George
The general standard for the determining whether an attorney has malpracticed, is whether of not she/he deviated from normally accepted standards of practice. In order to determine whether or not you have a viable malpractice claim you would have to contact an attorney who is knowledgeable in malpractice claims and review the details of your situation with them. I can not advise you whether or not you may have a claim via this medium and our firm does not handle such claims.
Can a litigant Willfully refuse to accept settlement check of $18,593.00 from defendant (captured on wiretap), then now be allowed Post-Judgement Notice of Motion alleging deficiencies in settlement of the sale of martial home where $8,000.00 was presented to litigant’s attorney & request opposite party’s incarceration till paid more… of Case#FM-15-381-02S Ocean County.
My name is Sandy Durst and I am an attorney in the Divorce Group of Stark & Stark. I have received the inquiries you posted on our website and I thank you for contacting out firm. Under the NJ Rules of Ethics I am prohibited from giving specific legal advice to individuals who are not clients and on whom I have not run the necessary conflict checks. If you would like to pursue your issues, I woudl ask that you contact my assistant, Jennifer, at 609.895.7380 to schedule a consultation.
Thank you-
Sandy Durst
does the case of puder v beuchel mean that nj court will always say this for every case or is it just one case that was won? tell me about other cases where the wife accepted the terms of the agreement and then learned after the fact that the agreement was very unfair and wanted to sue her divorce lawyer.
Jan, Every case is fact sensitive, and whether the Puder concepts would be applied to a particular case must be analyzed n the context of that case. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with specific advice or legal citations using this medium.
Bob Durst