Eastwood Ranch v. Dyess
Samuel Ayoub (Ayoub) a licensed realtor and real estate investor hired Robert W. Dyess, Jr., (Dyess) and his law firm, Good Wildman Hegness & Walley (the Law Firm), to prepare documentation to form a limited partnership, and a limited liability company, and an agreement for the purchase of an apartment building with several other investors as tenants in common. Dyess prepared documents to create The Eastwood Ranch, LP, (hereafter the Eastwood Partnership), a Delaware limited partnership to act as owner of the property, and The Eastwood Ranch GP, LLC, (hereafter Eastwood GP) to act as the general partner of the Eastwood Partnership. Ayoub was named the managing member of Eastwood GP. Dyess drafted the tenancy in common agreement (TIC Agreement), executed by the Eastwood Partnership and several other investors purchasing the apartment building together.
After the building was purchased, Ayoub discovered problems with Dyess’s drafting of the TIC agreement. Ayoub, Eastwood Partnership, and Eastwood GP (hereafter referred to collectively as Plaintiffs, unless otherwise required to avoid confusion), filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Dyess and the Law Firm. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment and denying a motion for new trial on the grounds Plaintiffs’ malpractice action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6.)[1] We affirm the judgment.
Comments on Eastwood Ranch v. Dyess