Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,078 chars

A.     Whether Kaushansky Could Have Recovered $91,734.29
       From the Landlord
       Stonecroft argues Kaushansky did not prove the landlord in
the underlying case was solvent and could have paid $91,734.29
in damages on the professional negligence cause of action. As
stated, the trial court made no findings in its statement of
decision on the landlord’s solvency or the collectibility of any
judgment against it, both of which go to the causation element of
Kaushansky’s cause of action for professional negligence.
       Kaushansky does not dispute she had the burden to prove
collectibility as part of her malpractice action against Stonecroft.
She instead argues Stonecroft forfeited this argument because it
failed to assert this theory of “nonliability” below, and it failed to
present a balanced statement of facts in its opening brief or
provide a sufficient record for our review. She further contends
we may infer the trial court made a finding of collectibility in its
statement of decision and that substantial evidence would
support such an implied finding.

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text