Francesca Maria Pier v. Katherine Jungkind, 427 S.W.3d 922

Ms. Pier and Mr. Pier entered a 2007 MDA dividing retirement assets and directing QDRO preparation by Jungkind and Evans & Petree.
Final divorce decree was entered April 16, 2007, incorporating the MDA; QDROs were not filed until January 2009.
Ms. Pier sued in October 2009 for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Jungkind, Evans Petree, and Shea entities.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in 2010; the Evans Petree defendants argued the action was time-barred.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Evans Petree (statute of limitations) and to Shea Moskovitz; it granted Whitfield summary judgment for lack of expert proof against negligence.
On appeal, the court addressed whether the one-year limit in § 28-3-104 barred the action and whether plaintiff met expert proof requirements for some defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the one-year statute of limitations barred Jungkind/Evans Petree	Pier filed within discovery rule window to avoid bar.	Pier knew of nonfiling by June 2008; action filed Oct 2009; statute expired.	Yes; statute of limitations bar affirmed for Jungkind/ Evans Petree.
Whether Whitfield is entitled to summary judgment for lack of expert proof	Pier asserted negligence by Whitfield; Vaughan affidavit supports some claims.	Vaughan references no conduct by Whitfield; no expert proof.	Yes; summary judgment affirmed for Whitfield.
Whether Shea Moskovitz defendants are entitled to summary judgment	Pier relied on Shea to monitor QDROs; Vaughan contested Shea's role.	Pier contradicted herself; Vaughan insufficient to refute Shea's affidavit.	Partially reversed; but the appellate court ultimately affirmed based on statute of limitations for the overall action.

Brown v. Erachem Comilog, Inc., 231 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2007) (applies discovery rule to accrual of claims)
Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996) (discovery rule applicability in tort cases)
PNC Multifamily Capital Inst’l Fund XXVI v. Bluff City Cmty. Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (determines accrual in complex loan/defect contexts)
Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (discusses discovery and accrual principles)
Stanbury v. Bacardi, 953 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. 1997) (limits on when knowledge of injury triggers accrual)
Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995) (knowledge sufficient to put on notice of injury)
John Kohl & Co. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (clarifies discovery of injury and cognizable damages)
Roe v. Jefferson, 875 S.W.2d 653 (Tenn. 1994) (recognizes discovery standard for accrual)
Wyatt v. A–Best Co., 910 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1995) (injury accrual and timing considerations)
Cherry v. Williams, 36 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (defines cognizable injury for accrual purposes)
Hill v. Lamberth, 73 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (summary judgment standards and permissible grounds)
Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2011) (summary judgment may be affirmed on alternate grounds)
Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008) (summary judgment framework; affirmative defense and essential elements)