On June 1, 2012, Wilson-Gaskins, pro se, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Kaye, Kaye’s professional liability insurer, and GEICO, alleging that they had engaged in “legal malpractice, retaliation and collusion.” Thereafter, Wilson-Gaskins retained counsel, venue was transferred to Montgomery County, and GEICO and Kaye’s professional liability insurer were dismissed from the action. In an amended complaint, Wilson-Gaskins asserted that Kaye’s breach of his professional duty of care constituted professional negligence and a breach of contract. Wilson-Gaskins alleged that she “suffered economic damaged due to payment of unnecessary taxes, legal fees and similar expenses in excess of $75,000.” Kaye,
…show more content…
Notably, the trial court did not expressly ground its decision on the language of the Release contained in the parties settlement agreement. Rather, the court found that Kaye had not breached the relevant standard of care, that Wilson-Gaskins had failed to show that she suffered damages, and that any damages she did suffer were not caused by Kaye. Accordingly, the circuit court found that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie showing of professional negligence or a breach of contract. The circuit court, accordingly, granted Kaye’s motion for summary judgment. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the circuit court’s order granting summary …show more content…
In his complaint, Kaye alleged that by filing her complaint, Wilson-Gaskins breached the Release contained in the parties’ settlement agreement, she breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that she was anticipating further breaches of the contract. In response, Wilson-Gaskins, filed a motion to dismiss Kaye’s claims for breach of the Release, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, Kaye filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that our prior opinion affirmatively established Wilson-Gaskins’s liability as the law of the case. Following two hearings, the circuit court found that although the Release absolved Kaye of liability for conduct within the scope of the agreement, the agreement did not provide Kaye with an affirmative cause of action to pursue against Wilson-Gaskins for damages. Accordingly, the circuit court granted Wilson-Gaskins’s motion to dismiss counts one and two of Kaye’s
Notably, the trial court did not expressly ground its decision on the language of the Release contained in the parties settlement agreement. Rather, the court found that Kaye had not breached the relevant standard of care, that Wilson-Gaskins had failed to show that she suffered damages, and that any damages she did suffer were not caused by Kaye. Accordingly, the circuit court found that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie showing of professional negligence or a breach of contract. The circuit court, accordingly, granted Kaye’s motion for summary judgment. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the circuit court’s order granting summary …show more content…
In his complaint, Kaye alleged that by filing her complaint, Wilson-Gaskins breached the Release contained in the parties’ settlement agreement, she breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that she was anticipating further breaches of the contract. In response, Wilson-Gaskins, filed a motion to dismiss Kaye’s claims for breach of the Release, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, Kaye filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that our prior opinion affirmatively established Wilson-Gaskins’s liability as the law of the case. Following two hearings, the circuit court found that although the Release absolved Kaye of liability for conduct within the scope of the agreement, the agreement did not provide Kaye with an affirmative cause of action to pursue against Wilson-Gaskins for damages. Accordingly, the circuit court granted Wilson-Gaskins’s motion to dismiss counts one and two of Kaye’s