Facts

The complaint alleged three causes of against defendants based on negligence (legal malpractice); breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of contract.

Defendants represented plaintiffs in a creditor action in Probate Court. Plaintiffs contended that a friend who had died had promised to leave them certain properties, make a trust naming them as beneficiaries, and pay them money to care for the debtor friend, among other things.

A Trust Creditors proceeding was opened on Jan. 9, 2019. On Jan. 16, 2019, a Notice to Creditors from the Trustee was served on plaintiffs that indicated that creditors had 30 days within which to file a creditor's claim. Plaintiffs signed an Attorney Fee Agreement with defendants on Feb. 7, 2019. There were disagreements between counsel and plaintiff, including whether the mother had a creditor's claim and also regarding plaintiff's claim, which defendant felt was not supported. There was also discussion regarding potential claim against the debtor friend for a promise to make a will or trust (where the statute of limitations would run from one year from the date of Habib's death.) Defendant did not believe that there was a viable claim for this promise.

A creditors claim on behalf of plaintiff's father was filed Feb. 13, 2019 and rejected by the Trustee on Sept. 18, 2019. On Oct. 24, 2019 defendant wrote a letter to the Clients that can best be described as a formal withdrawal as their attorney. The letter repeated much of what was previously communicated by defendant in a September 30th email. He stated "I do not intend to file an action in Probate Court on behalf of your mother based on a promise to make a will or trust." This letter also indicates that given the fact that another attorney was proceeding with their current claims in a related civil matter, and the lack of evidence to support filing a petition alleging the debtor friend promised to make a will or trust for their benefit, that pursuant to paragraph 5 of the representation agreement, he intended to withdraw from representing them and would be closing his file.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to file any creditor claims for plaintiffs despite working with plaintiffs collecting detailed information from them; missing the 120-day Statute of Limitation filing date deadline which is required from creditors to submit timely claims; and incorrectly advising plaintiffs that their deadline to file claims in the probate court was one year from the date of death of the Decedent.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements of causation and damages.

Result

The Court granted defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on both of the grounds argued: Statute of Limitations, and the lack of causation.

Other Information

The court agreed that absent tolling, a legal malpractice action accrues, and the one-year limitations period in CCP 340.6 commences running, when the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts constituting the wrongful act. For accrual purposes, the client need not know the precise nature of the wrong or correct legal theory, only that the client has been wronged. Further, the knowledge of the wrongful act may be actual or imputed. Thus, the client is charged with knowledge that should have been discovered by a reasonable person acting with due diligence. The action in this case was filed Oct. 17, 2022. Plaintiff was aware that no Creditor's Claim had been filed on her behalf throughout the course of defendants representation of plaintiff. The court agreed with plaintiff there were multiple different dates which reflect "actual injury" to plaintiff, each many years before the Complaint was filed, but even assuming, that the statute of limitations was tolled to Oct. 14, 2021, plaintiff, by her own admission, still failed to file this action within the one year timeline, as this action was not filed until Oct. 17, 2022, three days after the statutory deadline.