Ehrman v. Kaufman, Vidal, Hileman & Ramlow, PC, 246 P.3d 1048

Ehrman sought KVHR advice in Jan 2002 about acquiring Baillie's dock rights under a Contract for Deed that reserved the dock to Baillie and his heirs.
KVHR advised Ehrman he could acquire the dock rights and drafted a Lease and Assignment Agreement, executed in June 2002.
From 2002 to mid-2004 Ehrman used the dock; later, Myers, a subsequent owner, refused to consent to assignment and harassed Ehrman.
Ehrman recorded the Agreement in July 2004 and pursued a new lease option after Myers indicated he would not consent.
In 2006 Myers and others sued Ehrman; in Aug 2007 the district court held Ehrman had no interest in the dock rights.
Ehrman sued KVHR for legal malpractice in April 2008; the district court granted summary judgment in KVHR's favor in March 2010 as time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations for legal malpractice.	Ehrman relied on KVHR; fiduciary duty excused late discovery.	Discovery occurred by July 2004; tolled only if reliance justified.	Yes; discovery tolling applied, delaying accrual through Aug 2007.
When did Ehrman’s claim accrue under the accrual rule?	Damages not until Aug 2007; accrual later.	Damages accrued when notice of lack of rights existed (2004).	Accrual did not occur until Aug 2007 when the district court ruled.
Did Ehrman have knowledge sufficient to put a reasonable person on inquiry before Aug 2007?	Client reasonably relied on attorney; should not trigger inquiry earlier.	Ehrman had information from 2004 showing problems with the lease.	Ehrman had inquiry notice by 2004; discovery rule tolled only to Aug 2007.
Is the court adopting a continuous representation approach to tolling?	Continuous representation tolls the statute while attorney is involved.	No continuous representation; accrual is governed by discovery and damages.	Court adopts tolling considerations consistent with discovery, not a broad continuous-representation rule.

Peschel v. Jones, 232 Mont. 516 (Mont. 1988) (knowledge of facts, not legal theory, governs accrual)
Guest v. McLaverty, 2006 MT 150 (Mont. 2006) (discovery test focuses on facts and inquiry potential)
Burgett v. Flaherty, 204 Mont. 169 (Mont. 1983) (limits on discovery of negligence in timing)
Schneider v. Leaphart, 228 Mont. 483 (Mont. 1987) (no continuous representation tolling under § 27-2-206)
Estate of Watkins v. Hedman, 2004 MT 143 (Mont. 2004) (fiduciary relationship tolls discovery)
Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 2004 MT 144 (Mont. 2004) (discovery and accrual principles in malpractice)
Uhler v. Doak, 268 Mont. 191 (Mont. 1994) (accrual requires all elements and damages)
Johnson v. Barrett, 1999 MT 176 (Mont. 1999) (discovery rule triggers when plaintiff knows facts)
Spolar v. Datsopoulos, 2003 MT 54 (Mont. 2003) (accrual tied to actual damages; not mere threat)
Ereth v. Cascade County, 2003 MT 328 (Mont. 2003) (two-track approach in criminal context cited for methodology)