Artecia Behroozi v. Allen Kirshenbaum
128 A.3d 869
| R.I. | 2016Background
- Behroozi, pro se, appeals after Superior Court granted Kirshenbaum summary judgment on malpractice-related claims.
- Kirshenbaum represented Behroozi from 2007 to 2009 in post-divorce alimony arrearages; he withdrew with court approval in 2009.
- Behroozi filed suit in 2012 alleging legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and fiduciary breach.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in 2014, finding no expert needed, statute of limitations bar, and no proper fraud proof.
- Superior Court affirmed; Behroozi timely appealed the judgment.
- Issues focus on statute of limitations, discovery rule, continuing representation tolling, need for expert testimony, and venue/discovery order mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for malpractice claims | Behroozi argues discovery tolls period. | Kirshenbaum argues three-year limit expired; no tolling. | Limitations barred; discovery rule not tolled. |
| Need for expert testimony in legal malpractice | No expert needed; conduct obvious. | Expert required in family-law context. | Summary judgment affirmed; expert needed. |
| Continuing representation tolling | Continue representation tolls statute. | Doctrine not adopted; waiver on appeal. | Not decided due to waiver. |
| Venue and discovery order issues | Venue improperly transferred; medical records disclosure improperly ordered. | No transfer; protective order moots record production. | No reversible error; issues moot. |
| Fraud claim viability | Alleged misrepresentations amount to fraud; reliance. | Statements to Family Court; no direct reliance by Behroozi. | Fraud claim fails on lack of direct reliance and evidentiary support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharkey v. Prescott, 19 A.3d 62 (R.I. 2011) (three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice; discovery rule discussed)
- Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001) (fraud arising from professional relationship subject to malpractice limitations)
- Parker v. Byrne, 996 A.2d 627 (R.I. 2010) (prima facie fraud requires justifiable reliance; elements review)
- Toegemann v. City of Providence, 21 A.3d 384 (R.I. 2011) (summary-judgment standard; evidence on essential disputed facts)
- Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994 (R.I. 2012) (continuing-representation tolling referenced; not adopted for this case)
- Focus Investment Associates, Inc. v. American Title Insurance Co., 992 F.2d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993) (exception to expert-testimony requirement when malpractice is obvious)