Leyba v. Whitley

5 Citing cases

  1. Leyba v. Whitley

    120 N.M. 768 (N.M. 1995)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that an attorney's duty to a third-party statutory beneficiary of an action is subject to an adversarial exception, which negates that duty when an adversarial relationship exists and when "the third party knows or should know that he or she cannot rely on the attorney to act for his or her benefit"

    On appeal the Court of Appeals held that the attorneys did not owe a duty directly to Phillip LeRoy to ensure that he receive the settlement proceeds. Leyba v. Whitley, 118 N.M. 435, 438-40, 882 P.2d 26, 29-31 (Ct. App. 1994). The Court also held, however, that Whitley and Shapiro did owe a duty to their client Corrine to inform her that the money did not belong to her and that she had a fiduciary duty to distribute it to the child.

  2. Keegan v. Beauvais

    CIV 04-648 KBM/LAM (D.N.M. Aug. 20, 2004)

    Therefore, they argue, any claim against Beauvais associated with the filing of the lis pendens would be dismissed under New Mexico law. In support of this proposition, their motion to dismiss cites Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin Robb, P.A., 106 N.M. 757, 750 P.2d 118 (1988) and Leyba v. Whitley, 118 N.M. 435, 882 P.2d 26 (N.M.App. 1995). As Defendants correctly note, the New Mexico Court of Appeals in the Leyba case declined to impose a "duty" on an attorney under the circumstances of that case, holding that a "lawyer for a trustee is [not] liable to the beneficiary of the trust solely on the ground that the lawyer did not protect the beneficiary against misconduct by the trustee."

  3. Craig v. U.S.

    CIVIL NO. 06-489 BB/KBM (D.N.M. May. 31, 2007)

    17. The parents both understand that the settlement funds belong to the minor children and may only be used for their benefit. Plaintiffs' counsel advised both parents of the requirements of Leyba v. Whitley, 118 N.M. 435, 882 P.2d 26 (Ct. App. 1994), reversed on other grounds, 120 N.M. 768, 907 P.2d 172 (1995), to the effect that the settlement on behalf of their minor children is the property of the children and can only be used for their benefit. 18. The annuities will be purchased from Prudential Insurance Company. The Court finds that Prudential is a highly rated company, and the minor children face no unnecessary risk of loss with their annuities.

  4. Otero v. Jordan Restaurant Enterprises

    119 N.M. 721 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 5 times
    Adopting Restatement, supra, ยง 422 as New Mexico law

    Having resolved the indemnity question against Defendant, we also hold that there is no reason to require Plaintiff to proceed against both Defendant and the City, when Defendant is ultimately responsible for the entirety of Plaintiff's damages. Cf. Leyba v. Whitley, 118 N.M. 435, 445, 882 P.2d 26, 36 (Ct.App.) (procedure under which child would sue trustee, and trustee would then sue her attorneys for indemnity or contribution, would be unduly complicated), cert. granted, 118 N.M. 430, 882 P.2d 21 (1994). For these reasons, we hold that sound public policy requires that Defendant be liable to Plaintiff for the entire amount of Plaintiff's damages.

  5. Eldin v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co.

    119 N.M. 370 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    Recognizing that whether insured's misstatements to insurer were product of fraud, or mistake and confusion, is question of fact for jury to resolve

    Whether to believe Eldin's testimony or find that it was fabricated in a tardy attempt to cover up a fraud is a question for the fact finder to decide. See Leyba v. Whitley, 118 N.M. 435, 437, 882 P.2d 26, 37 (Ct.App. 1994), cert. granted, 118 N.M. 430, 882 P.2d 21 (1994); Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 42, 499 P.2d 356, 360 (Ct.App.) (intent element of fraud is a question for the jury where its determination depends on credibility of the witnesses), cert. denied, 84 N.M. 37, 499 P.2d 355 (1972). Consequently, because the jury should decide whether Insureds intended to defraud Farmers, summary judgment was improper with respect to Farmers' claim that the policy can be avoided on the basis of Insureds' fraud.