56 N.E.3d 123
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2005 Chenore hired attorney Robert Plantz to collect a $10,930 judgment against William Knight; judgment obtained in 2006.
- Knight filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in December 2006; Plantz told Chenore he would appear in bankruptcy court and instructed her to wait for notice. Chenore never received direct notice from the bankruptcy court.
- Over the next two years Chenore inquired of Plantz but received no substantive updates; no proof-of-claim was filed on her behalf and she received no bankruptcy distribution.
- Chenore learned of Knight’s bankruptcy discharge in July 2012 and filed an attorney-malpractice complaint against Plantz on May 27, 2014.
- Plantz moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) as barred by the two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice; the trial court granted the motion.
- Chenore’s motion to correct error was deemed denied; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) was improper because the complaint alleged facts avoiding the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal was proper given the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice | Chenore: equitable tolling/apparent delay by Plantz meant she did not discover harm until July 2012, so suit filed timely | Plantz: suit was time-barred under the two-year malpractice statute | Reversed — dismissal improper; complaint alleged facts in avoidance of the statute and factual dispute precluded T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing T.R. 12(B)(6) and viewing the complaint in favor of nonmovant)
- Ickes v. Waters, 879 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (two-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice and accrual when plaintiff discovers or should have discovered tortious conduct)
- Nichols v. Amax, 490 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 1986) (statute-of-limitations defense may be raised on T.R. 12(B)(6) when complaint shows time bar on its face and plaintiff may plead facts in avoidance)
- In re Estate of Carroll, 436 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (T.R. 12(B)(6) can be used to raise statute-of-limitations defense)
- State v. Am. Family Voices, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 293 (Ind. 2008) (dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) is rarely appropriate)
- Graves v. Kovacs, 990 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (complaint should not be dismissed if it states any set of allegations that could entitle plaintiff to relief)