Walters v. Pierson

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Charfoos

    183 B.R. 131 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1994)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that breach of an attorney's duty of disclosure to a client in the context of self-dealing constitutes breach of fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523

    Under Michigan law, a business transaction between an attorney and a client is governed by rules applicable to a fiduciary relationship. Walters v. Pierson, 359 Mich. 161, 101 N.W.2d 289 (1960). The Michigan Supreme Court has held that business relationships between attorneys and clients are disfavored, and therefore, the attorney has the burden of showing full information and disclosure, freedom from restraint and "perfect fairness" on his part as concerns the business transaction.

  2. Odish v. Cognitive Code Corp.

    CV 12-9069 FMO (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. May. 27, 2015)

    Moreover, Michigan law is consistent with California law for the purposes of this analysis. See, e.g., Walters v. Pierson, 359 Mich. 161, 166, 101 N.W.2d 289 (1960) (" Situations wherein lawyers engage in business dealings with clients whom they also represent legally are not favored. In such matters, the lawyer has the burden of proving perfect fairness on his part."); Palmer v. Arnett, 352 Mich. 22, 29, 88 N.W.2d 445 (1958) (once plaintiff has shown the business transaction " arose out of" or " pertained to" the attorney-client relationship, the burden is on the " attorney to show the fairness of his dealings with his client and his own good faith").

  3. Williams v. Griffin

    35 Mich. App. 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 8 times
    In Griffin, the court held that one individual ("Griffin") owed a fiduciary duty to another ("Donnelly") where "Donnelly, because of his feeble physical condition, was incapable of looking after himself" and it was inconceivable to the court "that Donnelly was capable of attending to his business and financial matters;" "Griffin readily admitted that he had occupied a position of trust with both..

    Griffin readily admitted that he had occupied a position of trust with both Mr. and Mrs. Donnelly and testified that Donnelly often heeded his advice concerning business matters. Griffin managed all of Donnelly's business affairs including the payment of taxes, the collection of debts, and the sale of real estate. Donnelly's advanced age and his physical infirmness led to his complete reliance on Griffin. This substantial reliance justified the trial court's decision to impose upon Griffin, as Donnelly's fiduciary, the burden of presenting credible evidence as to the fairness of his business dealings with Donnelly. Walters v. Pierson (1960), 359 Mich. 161. It was stated in In re Wood Estate (1965), 374 Mich. 278, 285: Griffin also drove Donnelly to restaurants for meals. Donnelly lived apart from his wife and saw very little of his family and relatives.