Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Woman Sues Divorce Attorney, Firm
Leticia B. Loya of Houston, TX, recently filed a professional negligence/legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty suit against Houston family law attorney Harry L. Tindall and his firm, Tindall & England, alleging she lost more than $100 million in community assets in her divorce because of the defendants' actions. Loya also alleges that Tindall and the firm charged her “clearly outrageous, unreasonable and unconscionable” fees.
In her petition, filed in June, Loya alleges that she retained Tindall and the firm in 2008 to represent her in a divorce from her “extraordinarily wealthy husband,” Miguel Loya. Prior to and at the time of the divorce, Mr. Loya was employed by Vitol Inc., and Leticia and her husband were major shareholders in that company. Beginning in 2006, she and her husband exchanged their shares of Vitol common stock for shares in Tinsel. They received “so-called 'stapling rights,'” which would increase the value of their holding in Vitol.
She alleges that, because the stapling rights were an “extraordinarily valuable community asset,” Tindall and his firm hired a financial expert to value the stock. The expert valued the Tinsel shares at more than $150 million, she continues, while Miguel Loya's financial expert valued the Tinsel shares at about $30 million.
However, according to the suit, Tindall failed to meet a June 2010 deadline to produce the documents her financial expert relied upon to support the $150 million valuation. The family court judge granted Miguel Loya's motion to exclude Leticia Loya's financial expert because the documents were not produced at least two days prior to the expert's deposition.
Loya alleges that, after the ruling, Tindall “begged” the judge to order the case to mediation, and the judge agreed. After a “marathon 23-hour mediation session,” Loya alleges that Tindall coerced her into accepting far less than the actual value of the Tinsel shares. As a result, she lost more than $100 million in community asset value.
Loya alleges that Tindall's failure to meet the deadline caused her to suffer a stupendous loss, and further, that his firm charged and received millions of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs in little over a two-year period. She is seeking a minimum of $150 million in actual damages, punitive damages, fee disgorgement, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
' Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, The Texas Lawyer
Woman Sues Divorce Attorney, Firm
Leticia B. Loya of Houston, TX, recently filed a professional negligence/legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty suit against Houston family law attorney Harry L. Tindall and his firm, Tindall & England, alleging she lost more than $100 million in community assets in her divorce because of the defendants' actions. Loya also alleges that Tindall and the firm charged her “clearly outrageous, unreasonable and unconscionable” fees.
In her petition, filed in June, Loya alleges that she retained Tindall and the firm in 2008 to represent her in a divorce from her “extraordinarily wealthy husband,” Miguel Loya. Prior to and at the time of the divorce, Mr. Loya was employed by Vitol Inc., and Leticia and her husband were major shareholders in that company. Beginning in 2006, she and her husband exchanged their shares of Vitol common stock for shares in Tinsel. They received “so-called 'stapling rights,'” which would increase the value of their holding in Vitol.
She alleges that, because the stapling rights were an “extraordinarily valuable community asset,” Tindall and his firm hired a financial expert to value the stock. The expert valued the Tinsel shares at more than $150 million, she continues, while Miguel Loya's financial expert valued the Tinsel shares at about $30 million.
However, according to the suit, Tindall failed to meet a June 2010 deadline to produce the documents her financial expert relied upon to support the $150 million valuation. The family court judge granted Miguel Loya's motion to exclude Leticia Loya's financial expert because the documents were not produced at least two days prior to the expert's deposition.
Loya alleges that, after the ruling, Tindall “begged” the judge to order the case to mediation, and the judge agreed. After a “marathon 23-hour mediation session,” Loya alleges that Tindall coerced her into accepting far less than the actual value of the Tinsel shares. As a result, she lost more than $100 million in community asset value.
Loya alleges that Tindall's failure to meet the deadline caused her to suffer a stupendous loss, and further, that his firm charged and received millions of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs in little over a two-year period. She is seeking a minimum of $150 million in actual damages, punitive damages, fee disgorgement, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
' Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, The Texas Lawyer
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.