Legal Malpractice Law Review : Professional Responsibility Case Summaries & Commentary : Bennett J. Wasserman : LegalMalpractice.com : Lawyer Malpractice & Legal Ethics

Commonwealth Land Title. & Citicorp Mortgage. v. Kurnos 340 N.J.Super. 25 (App. Div. 2001)

NJ Underlying mortgage refinance

Student Contributor: Maninder (Meena) Saini 

Facts: New Jersey property owners (the borrowers) wanted to refinance their home mortgage and retained attorney/defendant (Kurnos). The plaintiffs to this action are Citicorp Mortgage (the bank) and Title Insurance Company (the title company). The defendant was to refinance the property by discharging the existing liens on the property. The title company was to provide title insurance certifying that the bank’s mortgage was the first lien on the property. One of the existing liens on the home was held by Midlantic National Bank (Midlantic). Midlantic issued a letter to the defendant indicating that a written statement instructing Midlantic to close the account was required. However, no letter was sent and Midlantic’s mortgage became the first lien on the property. So, the bank’s mortgage was actually the second lien instead of the first. In June 1991, within nine months of the error, the title company knew of the defendant’s error. The borrowers then withdrew money on their available line of credit from Midlantic. In 1996, the borrowers defaulted on the loan, forcing a foreclosure. The bank paid Midlantic the outstanding balance in order to protect their interest and then filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant in 1998, alleging that he failed to secure the bank’s first lien position.

Issue: When did the six-year statute of limitation for the attorney’s malpractice start to run?

Ruling: The six-year statute of limitation commenced at the time the negligent conduct was discovered by plaintiffs even though monetary damages were not readily ascertainable at the moment of discovery. The appellate court held that the statute began running in June 1991 when the title company first became aware of the attorney’s error.

The cause of action accrues when the mortgagee knows or has reason to know that its lien has been impaired or endangered by the defendant’s negligence. At that time of negligent discovery, the mortgagee has suffered a legal injury.

Lesson: The lawyer committed malpractice by failing to secure the plaintiff’s first lien on the property. At the moment an individual discovers an error, a legal injury had occurred even though monetary damages are not present. According to N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, after six years of discovery, the client is barred from collecting damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ellison v. Schenck, Price, Smith & King, 654 A.2d 1024 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1995)

NJ: Underlying Real Estate and Litigation

Student Contributor: John J. Anzalone

Facts: Plaintiff's entered into a lease for developing cemetery grounds. Defendant represented both Plaintiff and the Cemetery. The Defendant also represented the plaintiff in negotiating the terms of the sublease of leased land. After the lease had become unprofitable for Plaintiff, Plaintiff sued Defendant. Plaintiff asserted that they relied on defendant's advice to enter into the contract because they were wrongly led to believe there was nothing preventing the lawful lease of the land. Plaintiff also claimed they suffered loses because the defendant failed to put an escalation clause in the contract with the person they sublet to.

Issue: Could the statute of limitations only have started to run when Plaintiff's income from the property decreased and thus entitle defendant to dismissal of the case?

Ruling: In affirming the lower court's decision on other grounds, the Appellate Division held that the lower court erred in dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations because there was a question of fact regarding when the actual damages occurred, based on the following consideration:
1) The cause of action arises when the plaintiff knows or should have known that they were actually damaged by the attorney's negligence.
2) The actual damage did not necessarily occur when Plaintiff's profits were lessened by the increased rent, they could have also occurred when the rate increase made the sublease unprofitable.

Lesson: Statute of limitations for legal malpractice start to run once the Plaintiff knew or should have known that they were actually damaged by the attorney's negligence. This determination is fact sensitive. Thus, in practice a lawyer bringing a suit against the other lawyer for malpractice should not assume that the actual damage that the plaintiff knew or should have known about occurred when it seems the Plaintiff was first injured by the alleged negligence. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Leffler v. Mills, 285 A.D.2d 774 (3 Dept. 2001)

Underlying NY Probate Action

Student Contributor: Marina Kritikos

Facts: Plaintiffs were beneficiaries of a will. They had hired the defendant attorney to probate the will. As part of his duties, the attorney paid state estate taxes due by the beneficiaries, but failed to timely pay the federal taxes due. Although the attorney then secured an extension to pay the federal taxes by January 1, 1995, he failed to actually make the payment until November 6, 1995. As a result, the Internal Revenue Services charged penalties and interest in the amount of $158,853.33 to the estate. Plaintiffs subsequently discharged the attorney, and in December 1998, brought an action for legal malpractice. Both Plaintiffs and the defendant attorney filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the attorney appealed that ruling.

Issue: Did the lower court correctly grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in light of New York’s three-year statute of limitation for the filing of legal malpractice actions?

Ruling: The lower court erred in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. There is a three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions which may be tolled if there is “ clear indicia of an ongoing continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney.” The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, found the evidence to be insufficient to establish a continuing relationship as a matter of law, despite the fact that the attorney was listed as “attorney of record” for the estate on an accounting dated January,1996 and federal and state estate income tax returns dated April, 1996.

Lesson: Although the court will toll the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions, the extension will only be granted where there exists clear, unequivocal evidence of an ongoing attorney-client relationship and continued dependence and reliance on the attorney with regard to the matter that was, purportedly, negligently handled.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fraser v. Bovino, 317 N.J.Super. 23 (App. Div. 1998)

Student Contributor: Lisa Larato

NJ Underlying Real Estate/Land Use Transaction

Facts: A deal for the sale of land fell through due to delays caused by challenges to the municipal approval of a condominium project. The real estate agent (Fraser) and the landowners (Genlaws) brought an action against the adjoining landowner (Defendant Bovino) who objected to the condominium project, his attorney, and others involved in ruining the deal. Fraser asserts that Bovino’s attorney (Allen) committed malpractice and acted unethically. The Genlaws also filed a claim against their attorneys Martini and Blessing who had been retained to prosecute their action against Bovino and his attorney.

The only claims still viable for the Genlaws were those which fell under the six year statute of limitations. It was undisputed that the attorneys returned the Genlaws’ file to them a few weeks before this statute of limitations expired, on January 28, 1997. The complaint, however, was not filed until April 25, 1997.

The Superior Court, Law Division, granted summary judgment to certain defendants in both actions. Appeals were filed and consolidated.

Issues: (1) Is Bovino’s attorney liable to the real estate agent, Fraser, for legal malpractice? (2) Are Martini and Blessing liable to the Genlaws for failure to file a timely complaint?

Ruling: (1) Bovino’s attorney (Allen), representing an individual who contested the proposed land use application, did not owe Fraser, the broker, even a limited duty of care. (2) Since Martini and Blessing returned the Genlaws’ file to them several weeks before the statute of limitations on their claims expired, their withdrawal from representation did not adversely affect the clients’ interests so as to warrant liability.

Lesson:

• Allen, who was not Fraser’s attorney, but the attorney of his adversary, did not owe Fraser any level of a duty of care so as to make him liable to Fraser under a professional malpractice claim.
• Under New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, Martini and Blessing did not commit malpractice because they (1) did not wait for the statute of limitations to run before withdrawing, and (2) left enough time for the Genlaws to file their complaint within the statute of limitations. That the Genlaws failed to file their complaint with the prescribed period of time, was entirely their own negligence, and bore no relation to the decision of Martini and Blessing to withdraw as counsel in a timely manner.

Editor's Note: In  all cases, make sure that before withdrawing, there is a reasonable amount of time left for the client to get substitue counsel to file a complaint before the statute of limitations runs. If it's getting close, consider filing a pro se complaint for the client thus giving the client even more time to get new counsel and thereby preventing the client's claim from becoming time barred. Do what is reasonable to help the client preserve their cause of action if you're not going to continue with representation, at least until they get new counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Albee Associates v. Orloff, Lowenbach, Stifelman and Siegel, P.A., 317 N.J.Super. 211 (App. Div. 1999)

NJ Underlying Civil Litigation

Student Contributor:  Joshua D. Aronson

Facts: Defendant attorneys were hired by the plaintiffs to represent them in a civil fraud action. An entry of default was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. Following the entry of default, one of the defendants in the underlying action filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The defendant attorneys failed to list the plaintiffs as creditors in the bankruptcy petition and, subsequently, failed to file an adversary proceeding for non-dischargeability of the debt before the passing of the bar date. This prevented plaintiffs from collecting any money from the debtors due to the discharge in bankruptcy, and thereafter, plaintiffs pursued an action for legal malpractice against their former attorneys. The defendant attorneys submitted a motion for summary judgment under the theory that even if the plaintiffs were successful in a non-dischargeability complaint, they would still not have been able to collect due to the financial status of the debtors. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that even if the plaintiffs’ judgment had not been discharged, the debtor would not have had the assets to be able to satisfy plaintiffs’ judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision.

Issue: Did the trial court improperly grant the attorneys’ motion for summary judgment in the legal malpractice action based upon the plaintiff’s inability to collect on their judgment against the debtors?

Ruling: The Appellate Division reversed and held that collectibility is ultimately a question of proximate cause. It remanded for a fuller factual record. The evidence submitted to the motion court  did not clearly establish that a reasonable juror could conclude that the debtor would have been unable to satisfy plaintiffs’ judgment.

By virtue of the "no-asset" Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, [the debtor] may, at the time of the asset searches at least, have had no assets. But he was, as far as the record reveals, at one point capable of maintaining an income and acquiring assets.   To the extent a substantial portion of his prior debts have been extinguished, he has benefited from the bankruptcy and there is nothing in the record that would suggest that his "no-assets" status is anything but temporary or that he does not now have viable income.

Lesson: It would seem that in order to prevail in a legal malpractice case, the burden of proving a former client's inability to collect an underlying debt, might well have shifted in some cases to the malpractice defendant. Of interest, see also Hoppe v. Ranzini,  (PDF) with permission of Thomson/Reuters, Westlaw.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Brizak v. Needle,  239 N.J. Super. 415, 571 A.2d 975 (1990)

Student Contributor: Maninder (Meena) Saini

NJ Underlying Statute of Limitations and Duty to Investigate

Facts: Plaintiff-client commenced a malpractice lawsuit against defendant-attorney, alleging the defendant was negligent by failing to file a medical malpractice claim before the expiration of the statute of limitations (“SOL”). The defendant argued the SOL did not start until there was expert opinion recognizing that medical malpractice had occurred. The facts are as followed: In 1981, plaintiff sustained an arm injury and was treated by Dr. Shafi. Instead of conducting surgery, the doctor simply placed her arm in a hanging cast. On December 5, 1983, plaintiff retained defendant to pursue an action against Dr. Shafi because she was still suffering from the affects of her arm injury. In May 1984, the defendant requested a copy of the hospital records. Next, in March 1985, the defendant obtained an opinion from a radiologist who advised defendant that no malpractice transpired. In June 1987, defendant obtained another medical expert opinion that held malpractice had occurred.

Issue: When does the “discovery” rule apply in any given case?

Ruling: The “discovery rule” tolls the statute of limitations when one “is either unaware that he has sustained an injury, or although aware that an injury has occurred, he does not know that it is, or may be, attributable to the fault of another.”  When one knows or has reason to know of the injury, the SOL starts to run.

Issue: What is the scope of a lawyer's duty  to investigate the basis of a client’s claim?

Ruling: An attorney must undertake a reasonably diligent investigation to determine if there is a  basis for commencing an action and when the statute of limitation starts to run.
The appellate court stated the “[d]efendant’s clearly erroneous advice to plaintiff that she need not be concerned about the time limitations until she found a physician to support her claim was itself a sufficient basis for linking his negligence to her failure to commence a timely action against the doctor.” The SOL started in December 1983 when the plaintiff had suspicion of the malpractice and retained a lawyer.  

Lesson: The defendant was not diligent in his investigation of the  medical malpractice nor of the ascertaining the date the cause of action accrued in order to determine the correct statute of limitations. . An attorney has a duty to take any steps reasonably necessary to properly handle the case which includes the duty to investigate and to file any action necessary for recovery within the applicable  time period.

Moreover, said the Court:

...[the] attorney who litigates a legal malpractice claim without the opinion testimony of a legal expert unnecessarily exposes his client to a serious risk...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link