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.

Gammage v. Thomson Conant, PLC

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

November 26, 2013

CHAD GAMMAGE, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
THOMSON CONANT, PLC, an Arizona professional liability corporation; and PAUL A. CONANT, ESQ., an individual, Defendants/Appellees.

Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2010-050103 The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge

Chad Gammage, Scottsdale Plaintiff/Appellant In Propria Persona

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix By Eileen Dennis GilBride and Robert R. Berk Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KESSLER, Judge

¶1 Chad Gammage appeals from a jury's award of damages, contending the trial court erroneously instructed the jury. Finding no error or prejudice, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Gammage hired Thomson Conant, PLC (the "Firm") to assist him in his efforts to modify the debt on his Scottsdale residence and lower his monthly payments prior to a scheduled trustee's sale. Gammage's combined debt under a deed of trust and a home equity line of credit exceeded his property's value by more than $100, 000.

¶3 In exchange for a flat fee of $3500, the Firm negotiated with the lender's servicing agent, Aurora Loan Services ("Aurora"), obtained a temporary forbearance agreement, and secured a reduction in debt payments while Aurora was considering the loan modification request. When an Aurora representative advised the Firm that the loan modification had been approved, the Firm immediately notified Gammage and advised him that he would receive the final modification documents directly from Aurora.

¶4 A few days later, the Firm received a letter from Aurora stating that it had terminated the loan modification process because the request had been withdrawn. The Firm notified Aurora in writing that the request had not been withdrawn and had already been approved. Nevertheless, the lender sold Gammage's property at a trustee's sale in September 2009.

¶5 At no cost to Gammage, the Firm filed suit against Aurora to set aside the foreclosure, and obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Gammage opted to abandon that litigation, moved out of his residence, and then sued the Firm and its partner, Paul A. Conant, for legal malpractice.

¶6 During the ensuing trial, the trial court instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, there was insufficient evidence to support Gammage's allegations that the defendants negligently failed to follow up or communicate with Aurora and had failed to monitor the status of the foreclosure. The jury could still consider the ...


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.