Sign In
Upcoming Event
Free Newsletter
DANIEL ARNOLD v. GERALD SOLOMON, ET AL.
//May 21, 2018
Torts — Legal malpractice — Duty of reasonable care
This appeal arises from a legal malpractice claim brought by Daniel Arnold (“Arnold”) against Gerald Solomon, Esq., the Law Office of Gerald Solomon, P.A., and Solomon & Bascietto, LLC (collectively, “Solomon”) in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County. Solomon rendered legal services to Arnold in an appeal from a judgment in a foreclosure action. This Court dismissed Arnold’s appeal as moot on the grounds that the subject property had already been sold to a bona fide purchaser, John G. Coe (“Coe”), and that Arnold had not filed a supersedeas bond to stay judgment.
In his complaint for malpractice, Arnold alleged, inter alia, that Solomon breached the duty of reasonable care in refusing to challenge Coe’s bona fide purchaser status before this Court. Solomon moved for summary judgment, arguing that the bona fide purchaser issue had not been preserved at the trial level. The circuit court granted summary judgment in Solomon’s favor, and Arnold timely appealed.
On appeal, Arnold raises the following question for our review: Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for Solomon.
