Nolan v. Ernst
2017 Ohio 1011
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Julie Nolan sued her divorce attorney, David Ernst (and his firm), for legal malpractice after unsatisfactory divorce outcomes, alleging failures on custody, support, asset investigation, and related matters.
- The trial court set a scheduling order with a January 15, 2016 cutoff for Nolan to file an expert report; Nolan identified an expert (Teri Wallace) but did not file a report by the deadline.
- Ernst moved for summary judgment on February 29, 2016, arguing Nolan could not prove malpractice without expert testimony; Nolan opposed, arguing expert testimony was unnecessary.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ernst on April 27, 2016, finding Nolan failed to produce required expert evidence and therefore could not establish malpractice.
- Nolan filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 10, 2016, but the court held the judgment was already journalized and final; Nolan appealed, challenging the dismissal vs. voluntary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case was improperly dismissed with prejudice instead of permitting voluntary dismissal without prejudice | Nolan contends her post-judgment voluntary dismissal should be effective because she was unaware of the court's entry | Ernst argues the court entered final summary judgment before Nolan's dismissal, making the dismissal a nullity | Court held summary judgment had been journalized April 27, 2016; Nolan's May 10 dismissal was ineffective and a nullity |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove legal malpractice claims | Nolan argued expert testimony was not necessary to show breach | Ernst argued expert testimony was necessary to establish standard of care on technical issues | Court held expert testimony required because alleged breaches involved matters beyond lay knowledge |
| Whether Nolan complied with the scheduling order to disclose expert testimony | Nolan failed to produce the expert report by the court-ordered cutoff and did not move to extend | Ernst relied on the scheduling order and local rules precluding undisclosed expert testimony | Court held Nolan's failure to timely produce an expert report precluded her from offering expert testimony |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the lack of admissible expert evidence | Nolan argued factual disputes remained and summary judgment was premature | Ernst argued absence of expert evidence left no genuine issue of material fact on malpractice elements | Court held Ernst was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (summary judgment standard and moving party burden)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (1996) (nonmoving party must present specific facts by affidavit or Civ.R. 56 methods)
- Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103 (1989) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 131 Ohio St.3d 137 (2012) (notice of voluntary dismissal filed after summary judgment is a nullity)