Harris v. Reedus
50 N.E.3d 1036
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Felice Harris (an Ohio-licensed attorney) retained Benita Reedus in Aug. 2012 to represent her in a divorce; the written fee agreement covered work through a final judgment entry.
- Reedus drafted an agreed divorce decree (filed Oct. 12, 2012) that required preparation of an OPERS Division of Property Order (DOPO) to divide the husband’s pension benefits; the parties were ordered to cooperate and split DOPO costs.
- Harris believed, based on representations she attributes to Reedus, that she would receive a lump-sum payment representing her marital share for the period up to DOPO implementation; by March–April 2013 she learned she would not receive a lump sum.
- Harris sought new counsel and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in Oct. 2013; the domestic relations court denied relief on Mar. 12, 2014, and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Harris filed a legal-malpractice suit against Reedus on Apr. 11, 2014; Reedus moved for summary judgment asserting the one-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Reedus; the Tenth District reversed, holding the cognizable event (triggering the malpractice statute of limitations) occurred no earlier than Apr. 17, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the malpractice statute of limitations begin to run (cognizable event)? | Harris: cognizable event occurred Apr. 17, 2013 when she first met new counsel and learned of a problem with the decree. | Reedus: Harris knew earlier (by Mar. 2013 and certainly by Mar. 12, 2014 denial of Civ.R. 60(B)) and thus the claim is time-barred. | Court: Cognizable event was no earlier than Apr. 17, 2013; summary judgment based on statute of limitations was erroneous. |
| Application of the discovery rule to legal malpractice accrual | Harris: discovery rule delays accrual until client knows or should know injury is related to attorney’s act; she did not have notice before Apr. 17, 2013. | Reedus: as an attorney plaintiff Harris should have discovered malpractice earlier and investigated; courts should not extend limitations. | Court: Under Zimmie/Skidmore test, focus is on when client knew or should have known; facts support Apr. 17, 2013 as the earliest cognizable event. |
| Whether affidavit testimony created a genuine factual dispute | Harris: her affidavit clarified, not contradicted, prior testimony and shows she learned of malpractice no earlier than Apr. 17, 2013. | Reedus: affidavit conflicts with earlier hearing testimony and should be disregarded. | Court: Affidavit explains ambiguous testimony and is admissible to create genuine issue of fact. |
| Whether the attorney-client relationship termination date controls accrual | Harris: relationship terminated over a year before suit, so accrual depends on cognizable event under discovery rule. | Reedus: even if relationship terminated earlier, Harris was on notice before filing, barring suit. | Court: The later of termination or cognizable event governs; here cognizable event (Apr. 17, 2013) controls and renders the suit timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mtge. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 (2011) (explains purpose of statutes of limitation and application of discovery rule).
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (1989) (adopts discovery rule for legal malpractice and sets two-part accrual test).
- Skidmore & Hall v. Rottman, 5 Ohio St.3d 210 (1983) (legal malpractice accrual principles).
- O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84 (1983) (discusses unconscionable accrual results and discovery rule rationale).
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (1995) (standard of review for summary judgment).