Legal Opinion · Dissent

Argoe v. Three Rivers Behavioral Center & Psychiatric Solutions

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 26, 2010No. 26844Published

1Dissent

*406Justice PLEICONES.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment here.

I agree that, generally, where an individual who holds a power of attorney hires an attorney, that attorney’s client is the attorney-in-fact and not the principal who executed the power. E.g., Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 789 A.2d 1271 (Me.2002). I also agree that, in general, an attorney who acts in good faith with the authority of his client is not liable to a third party for the performance of his professional services. E.g., Gaar v. North Myrtle Beach…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stiles v. OnoratoSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  2. Gaar v. N. Myrtle Beach Realty Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
  3. Estate of Keatinge v. BiddleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002
  4. Loftis v. EckCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API