Tarahfields, L.L.C. v. Wilson
2025 Ohio 1337
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Tarahfields, LLC, Razor Lake, LLC, and Terry Jurin) sued their former attorneys (Wilson, the Wilson law firm, Wolper, Emens, and the Emens Wolper law firm) over the handling of a 2017 sale of their sand and gravel business.
- Plaintiffs allege negligent advice on deal structure, failures to obtain/record documents (like a second mortgage), and that the use of an employment agreement to secure payment for part of the purchase price left them with no guaranteed payment.
- The Emens Wolper firm and Wilson ceased representing plaintiffs in 2017, and plaintiffs subsequently lost an underlying lawsuit against the buyers.
- Plaintiffs filed this action in April 2022 for legal malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and equitable/promissory estoppel.
- The trial court dismissed all claims, holding they were time-barred by Ohio's statutes of limitations and repose for legal malpractice, and rejected non-malpractice claims as not cognizable.
- Plaintiffs appealed, raising procedural and substantive issues, including arguments on timeliness and alleged trial court errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the legal malpractice claims were time-barred | Claims accrued later due to late discovery of harm; statutes tolled by events incl. COVID-19 | Extinguishing acts/omissions occurred in 2017; four-year statute of repose and one-year limitation undisputedly expired | Time-barred under statute of repose (R.C. 2305.117) |
| Whether trial court reviewed the correct amended complaint | Court reviewed wrong (July) complaint, not operative August 2022 amended complaint | Both complaints essentially identical; court properly considered operative pleading | No error; any mistake harmless |
| Whether the motion to compel discovery was wrongfully denied | Motion to compel was timely and should be granted | Motion to compel was untimely (after discovery cutoff); plaintiffs responsible for delay | Denial not abuse of discretion |
| Whether substitution of Emens's estate should have been allowed | Delay justified by counsel’s circumstances (other motions, personal issues) | Motion for substitution untimely; no excusable neglect shown | Denial not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (discovery rule for accrual of legal malpractice claims in Ohio)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483 (explaining operation of statutes of repose as absolute bars to untimely claims)
- Wrinkle v. Trabert, 174 Ohio St. 233 (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (setting standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Elliot v. Durrani, 171 Ohio St.3d 497 (statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling except as legislatively provided)