Zelikovich, D. v. Wood and Flodge, 2975 EDA 2023

Daniel Zelikovich ("Husband") sued attorney Christopher H. Steward and law firm Wood & Flodge for legal malpractice related to drafting a postnuptial agreement during his marriage.
The postnuptial agreement was executed in December 2014; the Husband and Wife divorced, and during that action, the Bucks County Family Court invalidated the agreement in June 2016.
Husband alleged that poor drafting and failure to advise of independent counsel caused the agreement’s invalidation, resulting in his ex-wife receiving over $1 million more in division of assets.
Husband filed suit in June 2020, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract; the trial court dismissed the tort claims as time-barred but allowed the contract claim.
At trial, the jury found breach of contract but no causation of damages; judgment entered for defendants. Husband appealed, challenging limitations, evidentiary rulings, and trial conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of Limitations on Negligence/Fiduciary Duty	Claims did not accrue until Husband knew actual loss in 2019	Claims accrued when Family Court invalidated agreement in 2016	Claims barred; discovery/occurrence rule triggered in 2016
Denial of Mistrial for Hearsay in Opening/Direct	Defense referenced prejudicial hearsay from Family Court witnesses	Remarks were not evidence, proper curative instruction given	No abuse; jury instruction cured any prejudice
Limiting Cross of Wife	Restriction prevented addressing duress and credibility	Questions exceeded scope of direct, not related to direct testimony	No abuse; court properly limited cross to subject of direct
Limiting Expert on Damages	Erroneous preclusion prejudiced proof of damages	Plaintiff chose to not recall expert after initial ruling reversed	No prejudice; jury found no causation, so damages not reached

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Ferretti, 935 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining statute of limitations for legal malpractice and the occurrence/discovery rule)
O’Kelly v. Dawson, 62 A.3d 414 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statute of limitations accrual determination for legal malpractice)
Hill v. Reynolds, 557 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial court discretion on new trial for improper counsel remarks)
Young v. Washington Hospital, 761 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 2000) (judge's duty to cure harm from improper counsel remarks)
Kimble v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, 264 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2021) (scope and limitation of cross-examination in civil trials)