The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jennifer Mihalovich and her firm, Stewart Law Group, affirming the lower court's summary judgment in a legal malpractice case brought by Gordana Mikalacki. This decision, filed on November 6, 2026, addresses the implications of an attorney's error in a divorce decree and the necessity for plaintiffs to prove damages in malpractice claims.

The case began when Mikalacki appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for proving damages in legal malpractice cases, particularly when the alleged malpractice involves a misstatement in a legal document.

Background

Gordana Mikalacki was involved in a divorce proceeding that concluded on March 9, 2021, when the superior court issued a divorce decree. This decree inaccurately stated that the outstanding community debt from a personal loan owed to Mikalacki's father was $100,000, while the actual amount was $200,000. Mikalacki's attorney during this process, Jennifer Mihalovich, failed to timely correct this error, which led to further complications.

After the divorce decree was issued, Mikalacki sought to hold Mihalovich and her firm accountable for legal malpractice. She argued that the attorney's failure to amend the decree caused her financial harm. However, Mihalovich's defense contended that Mikalacki could not demonstrate any damages directly resulting from the alleged malpractice. This dispute ultimately led to the summary judgment ruling by the superior court, which Mikalacki subsequently appealed.

The Ruling

The Arizona Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Mikalacki had not established that she suffered damages as a direct result of Mihalovich's error. The ruling stated, "Mikalacki is free to pursue a contribution action against ex-husband," indicating that the misstatement in the divorce decree did not change her liability regarding the debt.

The court emphasized that Mikalacki's claims of damages were speculative. For instance, she argued that she would have been able to pay off the debt with proceeds from the sale of the marital home, but this depended on several uncertain factors, including her ex-husband's willingness to cooperate and the success of potential legal actions. The court ruled that damages must be non-speculative and directly tied to the attorney's negligence, which Mikalacki failed to prove.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for legal malpractice claims in Arizona. It reinforces the requirement that plaintiffs must demonstrate clear and direct damages resulting from an attorney's alleged negligence. The court's decision underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide substantial evidence that connects the attorney's actions to the harm they claim to have suffered.

The outcome of this case may influence future legal malpractice claims, particularly in divorce proceedings where financial implications are significant. Attorneys and clients alike may need to be more vigilant in ensuring accuracy in legal documents to avoid similar disputes. The ruling also clarifies that errors in legal documents do not automatically result in damages unless they can be directly linked to a financial loss.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Mikalacki has the option to appeal to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.