449 P.3d 145
Utah2019Background
- Monty and Kelly Moshier obtained a money judgment against the Cottams for fraud and related claims. Their judgment was later asserted in the Cottams’ 2010 bankruptcy.
- The Moshiers hired attorney Darwin Fisher to represent them in the bankruptcy; Fisher timely filed a proof of claim but failed to file a Rule 4007 nondischargeability complaint by the December 29, 2010 deadline.
- The bankruptcy court dismissed the late nondischargeability complaint; the bankruptcy plan was confirmed on January 31, 2012, and distributions paid the Moshiers only a fraction of their claim.
- The Moshiers learned they would not receive full payment and eventually retained new counsel; they sued Fisher for legal malpractice on October 6, 2015.
- The district court dismissed the malpractice suit as time-barred under Utah’s four-year statute of limitations; the court of appeals affirmed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did legal malpractice claim accrue for missing a bankruptcy nondischargeability filing? | Accrued when plaintiffs learned trustee would not pay full claim (mid-2013/2014) or when plan confirmed | Accrued on December 29, 2010—the missed filing deadline | Accrued on confirmation of final bankruptcy plan (Jan 31, 2012) |
| Is the malpractice claim timely under the four-year statute? | Filing on Oct 6, 2015 was timely if accrual occurred at plan confirmation or later | Untimely if accrual occurred on missed deadline in 2010 | Timely: accrual at plan confirmation made the Oct 2015 suit within four years |
| Is Jensen v. Young controlling to start accrual at missed SOL deadline? | N/A (plaintiff distinguishes Jensen) | Relies on Jensen to trigger accrual at missed deadline | Court disavowed Jensen to extent inconsistent with Clark/Deloitte and Hillyard reasoning |
| Does the discovery rule or ongoing-proceeding principle delay accrual? | Yes—ongoing bankruptcy made harm uncertain until plan confirmation | No—harm occurred at missed deadline | Court applied ongoing-proceeding/damages rule: harm wasn’t final until plan confirmation |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 34 P.3d 209 (Utah 2001) (underlying-action resolution determines accrual when harm depends on that resolution)
- Sevy v. Security Title Co. of S. Utah, 902 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995) (cause of action accrues when plaintiff could first successfully maintain an action)
- Christensen & Jensen, P.C. v. Barrett & Daines, 194 P.3d 931 (Utah 2008) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- DOIT, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835 (Utah 1996) (accrual and when legal action may be maintained)