Claim for Legal Malpractice Dismissed Based on Statute of Limitations

Claim for Legal Malpractice Dismissed Based on Statute of Limitations

      An action for legal malpractice must be brought within a single year of when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim. In a decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, it affirmed the dismissal of a claim for legal malpractice because the plaintiffs did not act within the required period. Curtsinger v. Patrick, No. 2014-CA-000609-MR (Ky. App. January 29, 2016).

      Patrick served as legal counsel to the Curtsingers in connection with the title review of a farm and closing on its acquisition. Both the general warranty deed and the mortgage prepared by Patrick all referred to a passway in favor of Robinson, an adjoining landowner. The closing, which included the signing of the general warranty deed and mortgage, took place on December 15, 2010. The Curtsingers did not review those documents, but rather simply signed them.

      Eight months after the closing was apparently the first time Robinson sought to use the passway over the property.  Then, in October, 2012, 16 months after the closing, the Curtsingers filed a legal malpractice action against Patrick and as well as declaration of rights action against Robinson. The dispute with Robinson was ultimately settled by a payment from the Curtsingers to her, resulting in a modification of the terms of the passway. Thereafter, Patrick filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was time-barred. The Circuit Court would dismiss the action based upon the statute of limitations, leading to this appeal.

     Reading between the lines, it appears that the Curtsingers asserted that the one year statute of limitations of the legal malpractice claim against Patrick should not have begun until October, 2011, when Robinson claimed the right to use the passway. In contrast, Patrick, it would appear, relied upon the closing date. It would be held, ultimately, that the statute of limitations began to run from the time of the closing:

The Curtsingers signed the deed and mortgage but read neither. The limitation period is triggered upon the occurrence of a negligent act and resulting damages. The alleged negligence occurred when Patrick conducted the title search, the deed preparation, and closing upon the farm without informing the Curtsingers of the reserved passway. The damages occurred when the Curtsingers purchased the farm with the reserved passway easement. At that time, the damages were fixed and nonspeculative. (Slip op. at 5).

      Based thereon, the statute of limitations began to run as of the closing.  In that the lawsuit was not filed within a year, it was barred by the statute of limitations:

The discovery limitation period is triggered when a cause of action, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. It was incumbent upon the Curtsingers to read the deed and mortgage at the closing and if confused by its language, to inquire of Patrick as to the contents. However, the Curtsingers sat quietly at the closing, did not read the deed or mortgage, and signed both without objection, they cannot now claim they were reasonably unable to discover the reservation of the pass way in the deed or mortgage at closing.  The Curtsingers simply failed to exercise reasonable diligence. Hence, we conclude that the Curtsingers’ cause of action, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered on December 15, 2010, at the closing. (Slip op. at 6; citation omitted).