Richard Kovacs v. Jeffrey Robbins
331448
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff hired attorneys Robbins and Hertz Schram to negotiate an employment agreement with North American Bancard (NAB). Negotiations spanned years but a fully executed employment agreement was in place by April 1, 2010.
- Plaintiff’s malpractice claim alleged defendants negligently negotiated terms, failed to explain detrimental changes, and failed to advise about reliance on a 2001 letter versus the new agreement.
- Defendants conceded their services were complete once the employment agreement was executed; plaintiff’s deposition similarly confirmed the work was finished by April 1, 2010.
- Plaintiff later experienced alleged financial harms: in 2012 he was not paid an incentive bonus after NAB’s recapitalization; in late 2013 he learned newly created regulatory fees were not covered by his agreement. He blamed defendants’ negotiations for both harms.
- Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice complaint on July 31, 2014. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10) arguing the claim was time-barred. The trial court denied the motions; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the malpractice claim accrue under MCL 600.5838(1)? | Accrual should be later; plaintiff asserts a continuing relationship through 2014. | Accrual occurred when the specific legal services (negotiation and execution of the employment agreement) were completed by April 1, 2010. | Accrual occurred on April 1, 2010, when defendants’ work was complete. |
| Whether the two-year statute of limitations for malpractice (MCL 600.5805(6)) barred the claim | Claim timely because plaintiff discovered injuries later and asserted continuing representation. | Two-year period began April 1, 2010 and expired April 1, 2012, so the July 31, 2014 complaint was untimely. | The two-year limitations period ran from April 1, 2010; complaint was untimely and barred. |
| Whether the six-month discovery extension in MCL 600.5838(2) saved the claim | Plaintiff contends he did not discover the full scope of harms until 2014, so the six-month rule should apply. | Plaintiff discovered injury and possible cause by 2012–2013, so the six-month grace lapsed before filing. | Discovery rule begins when plaintiff knew of an injury and possible cause; plaintiff knew by 2013, so the six-month exception did not save the claim. |
| Whether plaintiff’s post-deposition affidavit created a factual dispute on continuous representation | Affidavit asserted a continuing legal relationship with defendants until 2014. | Deposition testimony established services were complete by April 1, 2010; affidavit cannot contradict deposition to create an issue. | The affidavit could not create a factual issue to negate deposition testimony; deposition controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Michigan 2007) (standard of review for C(7) motions)
- Gebhardt v. O’Rourke, 444 Mich. 535 (Michigan 1994) (malpractice accrues on last day of professional service; discovery exception discussed)
- Maddox v. Burlingame, 205 Mich. App. 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (lawyer discontinues service upon completion of specific retained task)
- Moll v. Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich. 1 (Michigan 1993) (discovery rule applies to discovery of an injury, not later realized consequences)
- Dykes v. William Beaumont Hosp., 246 Mich. App. 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (affidavit cannot contradict damaging deposition testimony to create a factual issue)