Sharkey v. Prescott
19 A.3d 62
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Virginia Sharkey and her husband retained Prescott in 1999 to prepare an estate plan, resulting in The Sharkey Family Trust and quitclaim deeds transferring Lots 42 and 43 to the trust.
- The trust divided on death into a Marital Trust and a Residuary Trust, affecting access to the residence and other assets.
- In 2001 Sharkey allegedly discussed concerns about merger of Lots 42 and 43 with Prescott; a July 19, 2001 letter purportedly memorialized that conversation, though Sharkey claims she did not receive it.
- In October 2003 Sharkey learned at a town meeting that both lots were considered merged, affecting sale of Lot 43; she later sought legal advice in December 2003 that allegedly revealed malpractice.
- Sharkey filed suit in October 2006 alleging two counts of legal malpractice: (1) advising to deed both lots to the trust; (2) drafting the trust to restrict access to the residuary principal.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment in May 2009, arguing the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice had run and the discovery rule did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule extends the statute of limitations for count 1. | Sharkey argues latent injury existed; discovery in December 2003 triggers delay. | Prescott contends no discovery issue; plaintiff knew consequences of merger at signing. | Discovery rule applies to count 1; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Whether the discovery rule applies to count 2. | Sharkey asserts latent injury discovered July 2006. | No latent injury; she signed and read the trust; clear drafting error on face. | Discovery rule does not apply to count 2; count 2 time-barred. |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on count 2. | If discovery rule applies, count 2 survives; otherwise improper grant. | Under §9-1-14.3(2) the injury was not undiscoverable; summary judgment proper. | Correct to grant summary judgment on count 2. |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on count 1 given disputed facts. | Disputed facts about 2001 meeting and advice to deed to trust. | Claims fail due to lack of timely discovery. | Trial court erred; summary judgment inappropriate for count 1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canavan v. Lovett, Schefrin and Harnett, 862 A.2d 778 (R.I. 2004) (summary-judgment standard; discovery rule requires genuine issue of material fact when disputed facts exist)
- Ashey v. Kupchan, 618 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 1993) (discovery rule for medical malpractice; undiscoverable injury doctrine)
- Richmond Square Capital Corp. v. Mittleman, 689 A.2d 1067 (R.I. 1997 (mem.)) (timeliness and discovery of negligence information)
- Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC v. 1889 Plainfield Pike Realty Corp., 994 A.2d 54 (R.I. 2010) (summary-judgment standard; discovery-rule discussion)
- Hanson v. Singsen, 898 A.2d 1244 (R.I. 2006) (preliminary factual questions on statute-of-limitations timing)
- Hall v. Insurance Co. of North America, 727 A.2d 667 (R.I. 1999) (preliminary questions on due diligence in limitation analysis)
- Roe v. Gelineau, 794 A.2d 476 (R.I. 2002) (preliminary analysis on statute-of-limitations issues)
- Shappy v. Downcity Capital Partners, Ltd., 973 A.2d 40 (R.I. 2009) (assent and contract-signing considerations in limitations context)
- Manchester v. Pereira, 926 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 2007) (assent to terms; reading instrument responsibility)