 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter v. Stewart3/27/2003
OPINION (For Official Publication)
This case arises out of an attorney-client relationship, which turned sexually intimate, between one-time client Beth Walter and her former attorney Alan Stewart. Following her discovery that Stewart was married, Walter filed claims against Stewart for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless misconduct, breach of contract, and battery. Upon Stewart's motion, the trial court entered summary judgment against Walter on all of her claims. Walter now appeals. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.
BACKGROUND
"' n reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.' Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 233 (Utah 1993). We state the facts accordingly." Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, , 52 P.3d 1267.
In June of 1998, Walter retained Stewart as her attorney in a divorce action. Through that representation, Stewart learned that Walter was in a "fragile emotional state and personal self esteem issues," including a "doubt her ability to have a successful relationship." Walter decided to relocate to Maryland. In the first part of April of 1999, Walter phoned Stewart several times, anxious that her divorce be finalized so she could move.
During his representation of Walter, Stewart became "very flirtatious, often commenting regarding [Walter's] personal appearance and grooming." In April of 1999, Stewart began to call Walter daily and, on April 15, took her on a lunch date. Following the lunch date Stewart asked Walter, " f you move to Maryland, how are we supposed to have a relationship?" Walter then "decided to postpone the move . . . to see where [Stewart's] 'relationship' with would head."
Through the first part of May, Stewart continued to tell Walter "that he was waiting to hear from husband's lawyer to finalize the divorce." On May 12, after personally contacting her ex-husband and the trial court, Walter learned that her divorce had actually been finalized on April 26.
The divorce decree required Walter to pay her ex-husband an amount of money. On May 13, Walter asked Stewart about paying the judgment. Stewart told her "to hold off on payment to see if her ex-husband would pursue collection and further advised [her that] if her ex-husband tried to collect on the amount due, she could make arrangements to pay before a judgment was levied against her." Walter took Stewart's advice and did not make the payment. Also upon finalization of her divorce, Walter desired to resume the use of her maiden name and asked Stewart "why her name change was not reflected in the divorce decree." He told her that she could take the decree to the Department of Social Security to have her name changed, which she did.
Stewart and Walter continued to see each other on a personal basis, and on June 5, 1999, Stewart kissed Walter, tried to undress her, and said that he wanted to "make love." Upon Walter's questioning, Stewart told her that he was a divorced father of four children. The two did not engage in sexual relations that day but did become sexually intimate on July 22, 1999. "On that night as [they] discussed sleeping together, [Walter told Stewart] that she would only do so if they were going to have an exclusive-monogamous relationship, a condition with which [Stewart] readily concurred and agreed to."
During their personal relationship, Stewart took Walter on numerous dates in public as well as on business trips. He never wore a wedding ring. He displayed on his desk an en
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|