Zeno v. Alex
89 So. 3d 1223
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Willie Zeno, Sr. sued his attorney for legal malpractice from a 1989 workers’ compensation injury.
- The 1992 trial date was set, but Zeno’s prior attorney withdrew two days before trial; Zeno hired Joslyn Alex on March 10, 1992, and they appeared for trial on March 11, 1992.
- Zeno filed suit against Alex on February 9, 2010, alleging mishandling of a 1992 settlement conference, a March–May 1992 trial, and a 1993 appeal.
- The trial court and appellate court concluded Alex’s conduct was prescribed under La.R.S. 9:5605; the court noted missing transcripts and documentary proof issues but affirmed prescription.
- Zeno’s suit was filed more than a decade after the alleged malpractice, and the court held the action timely only insofar as fraud tolling was not applicable to peremption under 9:5605.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied prescription under La.R.S. 9:5605 to the legal malpractice claim. | Zeno argues fraud tolled or excused delays, avoiding peremption. | 9:5605 imposes a three-year peremptive period for malpractice actions, with fraud tolling limited by subsection E. | Affirmed: action prescribed; fraud tolling does not override peremption; continuing tort tolling does not apply to peremption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard of factual review on appeal; manifest error)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (de novo review for reversible errors of law)
- Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins, 811 So.2d 1242 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2002) (fraud exception to three-year peremptive period; discovery rule applies to one-year period)
- Reeder v. North, 701 So.2d 1291 (La. 1997) (contra non valentem does not apply to peremption)