Hayenga v. Gilbert
236 Ariz. 539
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Arizona legal-malpractice accrual follows Amfac I/Amfac II rule: malpractice claims arising during litigation accrue after the underlying litigation ends or is waived.
- Hayenga purchased property in 1997; misrepresentations related to development restrictions were allegedly made by Gosnell and later by City of Phoenix.
- In 2003 Hayenga sued Gosnell for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and consumer fraud; Gosnell defense prevailed in 2007.
- Beus Gilbert allegedly failed to preserve her claims against the City or to anticipate Gosnell’s defense, impairing her litigation strategy.
- Hayenga settled with the City in December 2009 and abandoned her Gosnell appeal in April 2008, prompting deadlines for malpractice claims.
- Hayenga filed a malpractice action on November 6, 2009, arguingBeus Gilbert’s conduct harmed her underlying actions and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amfac apply to these malpractice claims? | Amfac governs accrual when malpractice occurs during litigation. | Amfac should not delay accrual or may not apply to these facts. | Yes, Amfac applies. |
| Did the malpractice claims arise during the course of litigation? | Claims concern failure to preserve or anticipate within ongoing litigation. | Accrual occurred outside or after the litigation ended. | Yes, arising during the course of litigation. |
| When did accrual occur for the claim about failing to preserve claims against the City? | Accrual occurs when underlying litigation with the City is finally resolved. | Accrual could be earlier when legal expectations arise. | Accrual occurred at December 2009 settlement. |
| When did accrual occur for the claim about failing to anticipate Gosnell's defense? | Accrual occurs when Gosnell litigation is finally resolved or the appeal is abandoned. | Accrual occurs earlier or differently staged. | Accrual occurred in April 2008 when Hayenga abandoned her Gosnell appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (Amfac I), 138 Ariz. 155 (App. 1983) (establishes accrual for litigation-time malpractice)
- Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (Amfac II), 138 Ariz. 152 (App. 1983) (injury not ascertainable until appellate process completes)
- Althaus v. Cornelio, 203 Ariz. 597 (App. 2002) (waiver of appeal may fix accrual)
- Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, 222 Ariz. 171 (App. 2009) (Amfac does not require indefinite delay; can waive by pursuing malpractice action)
- Comm. Union Ins. Co. v. Lewis & Roca, 183 Ariz. 250 (App. 1995) (harm and damages concept; accrual timing; non-speculative harm)
- Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder, 192 Ariz. 348 (App. 1998) (appellate process completion anchors accrual)
- Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C., 228 Ariz. 502 (App. 2011) (accrual affected by various intermediate considerations)