Boyd v. Brett-Major

The Boyds (plaintiffs) mortgaged their home to secure a $100,000 bail bond for their son; when the bonding company later sued to foreclose after the son missed a court appearance, it had actually failed to file a legally required affidavit, which would have been an absolute defense to foreclosure. The Boyds hired attorney Lin Brett-Major (defendant) to represent them, but she filed an answer that did not adequately raise that affidavit defect as a defense, and the bonding company won summary judgment. The Boyds sued Brett-Major for malpractice, claiming they wanted to win the case outright, while Brett-Major maintained the Boyds had actually instructed her only to delay the foreclosure while they raised money to repay the bond and preserve their relationship with the bondsmen. At trial, the evidence supported Brett-Major's version, and the jury was instructed to find for her if it believed she was simply following the Boyds' specific instructions; the jury did so.