John Howard Story v. Nicholas D. Bunstine
538 S.W.3d 455
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Story and Coffey retained attorneys Bunstine, Watson, and Becker to prosecute a lender‑liability suit (2011–2013); summary judgment was entered for two defendants on May 7, 2013.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims on November 13, 2013, after counsel advised the damages proof was not ready and (allegedly) misrepresented refiling prospects.
- Plaintiffs did not appeal the May 7, 2013 partial summary judgment; they later filed this legal malpractice suit on September 3, 2014.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/summarize‑judgment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28‑3‑104(c)(1) (one‑year malpractice limitations), arguing accrual on May 7, 2013.
- The trial court dismissed most claims (but preserved a discrete claim tied to the November 2013 voluntary dismissal); ultimately it granted summary judgment on that remaining claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to address accrual/tolling doctrines and whether an interlocutory ruling or a later act that makes it final can trigger a separate malpractice claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carvell discovery‑rule framework should be overruled | Carvell’s test is unsuitable; adopt a final‑judgment accrual or new tolling rules for clarity | Carvell and related discovery‑rule precedent are controlling and workable | Court reaffirmed Carvell and the established discovery‑rule formulation (not overruled) |
| Whether an interlocutory order can constitute a legally cognizable injury (accrual) | Interlocutory/non‑final orders cannot create actionable injury; accrual should await final judgment | An interlocutory ruling can, in some circumstances, produce an actual injury that starts the limitation period | Court held final judgment is not required as a bright‑line rule; accrual depends on whether an actual legally cognizable injury occurred under Carvell/Kohl |
| Whether to adopt appeal‑tolling or continuous‑representation tolling doctrines | Appeal‑tolling or continuous‑representation should toll limitations to protect clients and attorney‑client relations | Those tolling doctrines are inconsistent with Tennessee precedent and discovery‑rule policy; existing doctrines suffice | Court declined to adopt either appeal‑tolling or continuous‑representation tolling doctrines |
| Whether a subsequent attorney act that renders an interlocutory order final is a separate malpractice (accrual for that act) | Later act that makes an interlocutory order final is a distinct malpractice whose limitations period begins when that act occurs | Such conduct is part of the same chain of malpractice and accrual should be judged by earlier injurious event | Court held a subsequent act that causes an interlocutory order to become final can be a separate discrete malpractice event; here that claim survived statute‑of‑limitations challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995) (adopted Tennessee discovery‑rule formulation for malpractice accrual and rejected appeal‑tolling)
- John Kohl & Co. P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (explains two elements of discovery rule: actual/legal injury and knowledge/practicable discovery)
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (discussion of accrual and tolling doctrines; clarifies accrual concept)
- Cherry v. Williams, 36 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (rejects continuous‑representation tolling and follows discovery‑rule approach)