Guinn v. Murray, 837 N.W.2d 805

O’Daniels sue Murray and Lamson, Dugan & Murray for legal malpractice over Bernard M. O’Daniel estate administration.
Murray represented both the ODMC stock and Bernard’s estate, creating a claimed conflict of interest.
Murray advised Elizabeth to disclaim some estate property (including ODMC stock) to benefit the children; plan affected QTIP election consequences.
Disclaimers were executed in 2001 by Guinn and Michael under Elizabeth’s power of attorney; Murray prepared the estate tax return excluding the disclaimed property.
IRS audit in 2003–2004 spurred renewed scrutiny; tolling agreement signed April 6, 2004, tolling the statute of limitations for claims not yet barred.
District court held all claims time-barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222; resolution occurred via jury verdict, summary judgment, and directed verdict on different claims, with remand portions remaining.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery rule tolls statute of limitations for conflict claim	Guinn	Murray	Yes, discovery rule applied on remand.
Whether disclaimer-advice claim was time-barred	Guinn	Murray	No, discovery rule tolled; remand for further proceedings.
Whether QTIP election claim was time-barred or damaged	Guinn	Murray	Not barred; remand for damages consideration.
Appropriate handling of standard of care and questions of fact vs. law in malpractice claims	Guinn	Murray	Questions of law for court; questions of fact for jury; remand guidance provided.

Bellino v. McGrath North, 274 Neb. 130 (Neb. 2007) (continuous representation tolled only when applicable)
Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (Neb. 2013) (directed verdict standards; independent review of law)
Carruth v. State, 271 Neb. 433 (Neb. 2006) (occurrence rule for accrual in malpractice)
Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (Neb. 2002) (statute of limitations start point; undisputed facts)
Shada v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 283 Neb. 103 (Neb. 2012) (summary judgment standards; appellate review)