Antonis v. Liberati 821 A.2d 666 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)
Student Contributor: Evan Kusnitz
PA Underlying Mortgage Transaction
Facts: Plaintiff hired Attorney to prepare a mortgage and note as a security on a loan to Borrower. Attorney delivered the documents to the Recorder of Deeds. Plaintiff called Attorney several times to ask if the mortgage was recorded correctly, and Attorney repeatedly assured him that it was. However, due to a clerical error, the mortgage was in fact not recorded correctly. As a result, Borrower was able to sell the land subject to the mortgage without disclosing the existence of the mortgage, and without paying anything to Plaintiff. Plaintiff successfully sued Attorney. On appeal, Attorney argued that the trial court erred by not requiring expert testimony to show that he had a duty to Plaintiff to ensure that the mortgage was recorded correctly. Attorney also argued that Borrower’s fraud was an intervening cause of Attorney’s harm.
- Is expert testimony required to show that an attorney has a duty to a client to ensure that a mortgage is recorded correctly?
- Is a borrower’s fraud––selling mortgaged land without disclosing the incorrectly recorded mortgage––an intervening cause of any harm caused by an attorney’s failure to ensure the mortgage was correctly recorded?
Ruling: In affirming the decision of the trial court, the appellate court ruled:
1. Expert evidence . . . is not required when the issue of negligence is clear enough to be concluded as a matter of law.
Since it is the responsibility of the mortgagee to ensure that the mortgage has been properly recorded, that duty undoubtedly falls upon his attorney, who represents him in the matter.
2. A borrower’s fraud is not an intervening cause of the harm caused by an attorney who failed to ensure that a mortgage was correctly recorded. If the attorney did not breach his duty to his client, the fraud could have never happened.
1. A mortgagee’s attorney has a duty to ensure that the mortgage is recorded correctly.
2. When an attorney’s negligence is obvious, expert evidence may not be required.
Tagged with: Antonis v. Liberati 821 A.2d 666 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), common knowledge, Expert Witness, Expert Witnesses, mortgages, Pennsylvania, Real Estate
Posted in: Expert Witnesses, Pennsylvania, Real Estate