Walling v. Wagner
2016 Ohio 5444
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Larry D. Walling retained attorney H. Charles Wagner in 2008 in connection with potential federal criminal exposure and forfeited property seized during investigations.
- Wagner advised Walling to forfeit property to avoid drug charges; Walling was later charged and pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced in 2011.
- In December 2012 Walling filed a pro se motion in federal court seeking return of forfeited property; that motion was denied by the district court on April 15, 2013 (a copy was also mailed to Wagner).
- On November 25, 2014 Walling filed a state-court malpractice suit against Wagner claiming breach of contract and fiduciary duty for failing to pursue return of the property.
- Wagner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C), asserting the malpractice claim was barred by R.C. 2305.11(A)’s one-year statute of limitations; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walling's malpractice claim was timely under the one-year statute of limitations | Walling argued the court never definitively found when the attorney-client relationship terminated and that his suit was timely | Wagner argued the malpractice claim accrued no later than April 15, 2013 (when the federal court denied the return motion), so the Nov. 25, 2014 suit was untimely | Court held accrual occurred no later than Apr. 15, 2013 (termination of relation / cognizable event); suit filed Nov. 25, 2014 was time-barred and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575 (2000) (Civ.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings proper only when no set of facts in support entitles plaintiff to relief)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (standard for determining sufficiency of pleadings in motion to dismiss context)
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (1989) (malpractice accrues when client discovers or should discover injury or when attorney-client relationship for that transaction terminates)
- Smith v. Conley, 109 Ohio St.3d 141 (2006) (the later of discovery or termination date starts statute of limitations for legal malpractice)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (a represented criminal defendant has a right to self-representation, but no right to hybrid representation)