With Divorce, There Are Still Some Damages That Must Be Defined

In Mariscotti v. Tinari, the court found that a finding of Summary judgment was appropriate when Joan K. Mariscotti, the wife in a divorce settlement, made a complaint of loss that was too speculative. 335 Pa. Super. 599, 485 A.2d 56 (1984).

Ms. Mariscotti hired Mr. Nino V. Tinari, Esquire, to handle her divorce. She alleged that Mr. Tinari gave her an incorrect evaluation of the stock owned by her husband, John A. Mariscotti. Mr. Tinari told her that the stock was worthless when in fact, it turned out to be worth significant value.

Ms. Mariscotti admits that she knew her husband's stock holdings were in his name and she did not have title to them, however, she claims that she would have been in a better bargaining position if she had known the value of the stock. Ms. Mariscotti claims that the lawyer's mistake damaged her ability to receive the best possible property settlement after the divorce. Mr. Tinari made a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the ground that the client's loss, if any, was too speculative to allow recovery.

The test is by the court is "whether damages are remote or speculative has nothing to do with the difficulty in calculating the amount, but deals with the more basic question of whether there are identifiable damages...thus damages are speculative only if the uncertainty concerns the fact of damages rather than the amount."

The court further made clear that an essential element of a client's claim that a lawyer has breached his professional and/or fiduciary obligations is a showing of actual loss. If the client cannot prove actual loss, the claim may be too speculative or remote to survive.

In this case, since Ms. Mariscotti said that she may have been able to achieve a better settlement. As the court but it "her claim, it seems obvious, is based on pure speculation. Whether she could have obtained a better settlement is anyone's guess." The court further goes on to say that figuring out that issue cannot be left to a jury. Due to the speculative nature of the claims, there was not enough for a cause of action and they were dismissed.


Why Clients Want Us

  • Thousands of Clients Helped

    We have helped thousands of clients with both small and big cases since the inception of the firm. Our attorney Matthew Weisberg has had the opportunity to fight for the rights of clients before the Supreme Court.

  • Affordable Pricing

    We are committed to providing transparent flat fees that are affordable. Everyone deserves the ability to fight for their rights without the worry of affordability.

  • Over 20 Years of Experience

    Since 2005 our firm has advocated for the rights of clients in Philadelphia and surrounding cities. In addition, our attorneys have been in the legal field for over 20 years bringing immeasurable knowledge with them to the firm.

  • Free Consultations

    We understand the stressful nature of the situation you can be in. Call us for a free consultation and we will strive for a response within 24 hours.

Start Your Free Consultation Today!

Defending Our Clients

See What Our Clients are Saying
  • “They helped me get my life back. I will always remember how empowered I felt after I testified and when the case was over (in my favor!).”

    - Robin R.
  • “When no one would take my legal malpractice case, they did and won!”

    - Doniell W.
  • “Weisberg Law was the only firm that took an interest in our racial discrimination case against a local school district.”

    - Kerry M.

Contact Us to Start Assisting You

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.