Calkins, M. v. Butz, E.
442 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 23, 2017Background
- Siblings Charles and Anna Kasych owned eight valuable Whitehall Township properties as joint tenants; they discussed testamentary gifts to St. Luke’s Hospital and retained Edward Butz (of Lesavoy Butz & Seitz) for estate planning.
- In 2009 Butz prepared wills and deeds converting the properties from joint tenancy to tenancy in common so each could devise a one-half interest to St. Luke’s; the deeds were recorded and wills executed; Charles died in 2010 and his one-half passed to St. Luke’s.
- Anna administered Charles’s estate, later revised or revoked her will with other counsel, and died in 2013 with no will admitted to probate; appellant (Administratrix of Anna’s estate) sued in 2015.
- The 2015 complaint alleged (1) breach of contract (seeking application of a four-year statute of limitations), (2) professional malpractice, and (3) breach of fiduciary duty against Butz/LB&S; claims against St. Luke’s were dismissed earlier.
- Butz moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting all claims were time-barred; the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendants; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach-of-contract claim is governed by 4-year rule and timely | Breach was contract (assumpsit) for failing to deliver a revocable bequest; 4-year statute applies so claim timely | Contract claim accrued when deed/wills were executed (2009/2010), so claim filed in 2015 is time-barred | Court: Claim is a cognizable breach of contract but accrued by 2010 at the latest; 4-year period expired before 2015 — barred |
| Whether discovery rule/fraudulent concealment tolls limitations for contract claim | Appellant: discovery rule tolled until 2013 letter revealing Butz’s conflict; thus limitations did not run earlier | Defendants: injury (loss of survivorship/right to whole property) was known by 2009–2010; discovery letter does not change accrual for the contract claim | Court: Discovery rule does not save contract claim — injury and cause were known by Charles’s 2010 death; letter in 2013 irrelevant for accrual |
| Whether malpractice/fiduciary-duty claims timely under 2-year rule | Appellant: malpractice/fiduciary claims tolled until 2013 letter revealed conflict; 2-year rule from 2013 would permit suit | Defendants: plaintiff knew critical facts by 2009–2010; letter confirmed conflict by Feb 2013, so filing in March 2015 was too late | Court: Claims accrued no later than Feb 2013; filing March 2015 was after two-year window — barred |
| Whether the 2015 filing relates back to a prior 2014 complaint | Appellant: earlier 2014 complaint (dismissed on captioning) should allow relation back | Defendants: no preservation below; no Pennsylvania authority cited to support relation-back theory | Court: Relation-back argument waived (not raised below or in Rule 1925(b)) and unsupported; therefore not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Forest Resources, LLC, 83 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (standards for judgment on the pleadings and appellate review)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (articulating discovery rule and when accrual occurs for limitations purposes)
- Fiorentino v. Rapoport, 693 A.2d 208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (legal-malpractice accrual principles; loss of property rights establishes injury)
- Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1993) (distinguishing malpractice (trespass) and assumpsit (contract) theories against attorneys)