Ainbinder v. Bodinet
1 CA-CV 15-0428
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Ainbinder sued his former attorney Nancy Bodinet and her firm for legal malpractice, claiming negligent representation in a 2011 marital dissolution that led to his bankruptcy.
- The dissolution (consent decree, property settlement, promissory note, parenting plan) awarded Ainbinder an interest in a medical practice and required him to make a $398,630.63 equalization payment via an initial $100,000 and quarterly payments over three years.
- Ainbinder's amended complaint alleged he discovered Bodinet’s malpractice in February 2014 (and alternatively in November 2012) and filed suit November 12, 2014.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under A.R.S. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations), arguing the malpractice claim accrued when the consent decree was signed on January 5, 2011.
- The superior court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Ainbinder’s obligations were definite by June 2011 (when the medical practice stopped quarterly distributions), so he knew or should have known of the malpractice more than two years before filing.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the discovery rule did not toll accrual because Ainbinder had sufficient facts by June 2011 to identify a wrong and resulting injury and he failed to plead facts that would cure the statute-of-limitations defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did malpractice claim accrue for limitations? | Ainbinder: accrual tolled until he discovered negligence (Nov 2012 or Apr 2014). | Bodinet: accrual occurred when consent decree was entered (Jan 2011) or when payments ceased (June 2011). | Accrual occurred by June 2011; suit filed Nov 2014 was time-barred. |
| Application of discovery rule to toll limitations | Ainbinder: discovery rule applies because he only learned of problems with the promissory note later. | Bodinet: any actionable harm and cause were discoverable by June 2011. | Discovery rule does not save the claim; plaintiff had enough knowledge to investigate by June 2011. |
| Sufficiency of pleading / leave to amend after dismissal | Ainbinder: should be allowed to amend to plead facts establishing tolling. | Bodinet: plaintiff failed to identify facts he would add; dismissal appropriate. | Leave to amend denied as plaintiff failed to allege facts that would cure the defect. |
| Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when limitations appears on face | Ainbinder: disputed accrual facts justify surviving dismissal. | Bodinet: complaint shows claim is barred on its face. | Dismissal proper where plaintiff cannot show a viable tolling factual basis; courts need not speculate about hypothetical facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (discussing de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417 (pleading standards; courts assume truth of well-pled facts but not conclusory assertions)
- Dressler v. Morrison, 212 Ariz. 279 (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal principles)
- Hayenga v. Gilbert, 236 Ariz. 539 (legal malpractice actions governed by A.R.S. § 12-542)
- Keonjian v. Olcott, 216 Ariz. 563 (discovery rule accrual: when client knows or should know harm resulted from attorney negligence)
- Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 160 Ariz. 139 (burden on plaintiff to demonstrate discovery rule tolling when limitations appears on complaint’s face)
- Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406 (leave to amend where amendment would cure pleading defects)
- Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313 (plaintiff’s duty to investigate with due diligence to discover facts triggering accrual)