marital settlement agreement was entered into and disposed of that would have been enjoying a two thousand what it was shortly after he murdered settlement why did those representations make a difference to make a difference because because he represented the plaintiff in a different case what do you see here which read well i don't know maybe it's just an impression i get one of the problems you have it seems to me is there is a tendency and even in some of the opinions i have to go on i have to admit  even in some of the opinions there is it tendency there is a tendency to use language that would seem to suggest that the discovery rule applies to the statute of repose just as it does with the statute of limitations would you agree ok there's enough ambiguity in some of the case without citing to the author i was looking at one of them in particular and need the language and it is not my which there could have been remediate reference do not count against the statute repos that what counts is the positive act and we tours it would be for i can give you a busy example of where you might be better off if you had an e mail compared by the defendant attorney in this case it says an internal e mail that says you know i really screwed up in this case but where we coming up on the last year the statute of repose if we can just put him off until such and such a date will be fine here you might have you know the kind of case that you're looking for but there's no evidence of what we have that there's only there's only one we're getting about arguably other state earlier stages which could also be claimed as as as ever been seen to be awareness into the awareness of thousand seven over the judgment was entered two thousand and five i call it was filed within two years he was three months too late and he could easily have filed it within that time period that still be within the range of the statute of repose and the cases are very clear well that starting with the old case of endorsing cell objects dealing with statutes of limitations which have been extended weaknesses are in your presentation and you know that if the the concealment is the scholar with a reasonable tim the beginning of the statue of repose period you see that that's another day that we don't have to talk about misrepresentations or other full sorts of rewrites we're with them the statute of but if you say that's not in the period of repose begins to run then again we don't have to worry about whatever reassurances are misrepresentations were made because you don't think you don't meet that well we're also treatment until that ends the period of limitations doesn't yeah that's incoming where you have a period of negligent the continuation of the continuous negligen repose must begin well technically speaking the acts of representation didn't end until you until he was fired b mean that the acts of representation he is the equivalent of representation frequent does not say that the statute begins to run when the representation it talks about when until the period of repose asked and then ultimately decide to do something you know he has that act within a reasonable time so maybe he can do whatever he has to do to get his more years on the carpet for some damage recovery yes to do that within the period of repose if reasonably available and seventeen months or what have judgment in favor of the wife the answer is i'm waiting for an answer from you but to me it seems relatively concludes why isn't the why doesn't the riposte period began at the time when the attorney ruben that check was made payable to france that was the whole basis of the conversion actually yes well but the check was sent to your client who sat on it for how long two y was in his possession that he had some knowledge that there was something wrong with this other or did somebody read the other way well he actually probably knew the tech there's something decision came down in favor of the wife and it at that point he can no longer rely on anything his lawyers tell about this but there but he fails quoted right after which really says exactly the opposite of what the first but that last sentence was the problem that i think occurs in cases like trilogy is that it's not paying close attention to the language of the statute itself to fourteen point three because to fourteen point three doesn't say the last act of representation no it doesn't it says the the period begins when on the act or mission out of which the injury arises and just as gordon you use that phrase the act that creates the problem which is a an excellent paraphrase of precisely two thirteen point three six from where you but i also think it's supported when you look at cases like surfing which i think is about as close to one point this is you can get and you look at cases like hester you see in those circumstances start with let surface and surf and you've got hundred eighty six corporation is is established that creates the problem it enables the the defendant to take majority position in the corporation so that he can later come along they could have been involved in this case let us suppose that the fourteen zero one to hit them a lot and the attorney amended the settlement agree ok and still successful fourteen zero one right give rise to another injury right if it does certainly that would be a separate new cars a new report is true it would be good because you would be litigating the negligent act that gave rise to an injury at the time of the amendment who's who's asked specifically for a copy of the nonsupport or and the petition the fourteen zero one petition and the wife's response to it and doesn't read at stake and doesn't take any steps to fix it so there's an approximate cost doesn't cause fact is we go back to the issue and i think you know what's unique what's and what's interesting about this case is it for presents the court with an opportunity to clean up a little bit of the loose language that nails i think hester hester i don't think you need so much the speculative aspect of it hester recognizes that the failure to come in and reinstate the case doesn't cause any injury the injury occurred when the case was d w p when you look at of the last act of representation language is unnecessary ah but i think what it does represent in that case is when the lawyer puts the when when the really pushes his work and sends the deed to the bank in february of one thousand nine hundred two and franca and the court says no that was the last act that caused the injury that was when he said the deed that deprived the husband of his marital interest in the hall that's the injury again and that's what it ran from properly have no successor counsel who is in full possession of it and actually trying to deal with the merits of the issue in the conversion case so i mean all the factors are present but i do want to come back to this point i think that you can use this case as an opportunity to make it clear that the repos period runs not just from the last act of representation but from the last that the last act out of which the injury arises or originates and that's the kind of language when the supreme court and or lack talked about the meaning of that phrase arising out of they talked about an origin or source and that's the language that's used in two fourteen point three and so if you take the position that the religi plaintiff to act with regard to be initial failure when you know that that is the feat of the value of the injury you were talking about is the fact that the miracle settlement agreement according to point if did not adequately or accurately reflect the loans and debts and the division of those items and the fact is you can't sit still cause because the original act and cause world but in terms of whether they are factual causes socrates would insist that there are costs i and i understand your point judge but respectfully what i think is that the the man with the marital settlement agreement is made into a judgement judgment of a court that says he has responsibility for all of these debts and obligations that the images don't that's of the exposure exist now i agree it hasn't come home to roost yet at that point statute of repose commences in this case and the subsequent acts that occurred that you've characterized as possibly negligent extra missions do not any really change or affect what happened when that judgment was entered exposing him to those risks it doesn't gentlemen and the like that still keeps them separate that's the balancing act yes no question about it but we still come back to the fact that the structure of this and the up through the case presents to make it clear that  tied to the act out of which the injury or originates what is the origin of the injury that's the language that you know you need to clean up i think from some of these other cases the talk simply about i want to say just the l and if he doesn't fix it through acts of negligence there should be a malpractise action for that and when he doesn't fix it at that stage oh through another stage that's there should be a malpractise action for that not your response to that is yes he can now practice but there are three malpractise action not one and if it's a separate malpractise section each segment has to be judged under malpractise principles where you have to establish the probability of i'm dead right you know and that and each one of the stages can feed off the first thing the damage having been done there everything else speculates it doesn't assume even have to be in the answer that it's just speculative even if you took these apart he still loses because if you look at this from the standpoint of the defect of the agreement and the failure to file a post judgment motion within thirty the clerk of the court rather than i suppose that's possible but he would have to be a counterclaim i don't think it was properly set off it off and i think the point is well taken we did actually brief it at the trial so your point was made if you want to see anything about it in the the starting point of the repos period and mr c were just as argued throughout this case into doing continuing negligent representation all when you look at cunningham and and and justice or you mention the cunningham case and you recognize that distinction that that statute of repose talks about act a mission or occurrence and you do have a continuing negligent treatment rule that applies there it's because there is added injury with each treatment that is in compassed within that idea of an occurrence which is what's missing from the statute of repose in the legal malpractise catch statute into fourteen point three which i think is a point that can be used to buttress this idea that the origin of the injury that original negligent act remission that is the origin of the injury is the starting point and right the possibility in a medical malpractise case where there can be an occurrence that can be met to well  because they use the word a crux so when we talk about this ongoing problem that you were discussing earlier of active for active for act the legislature has seen fit to encompass step by adding the word occurrence in the middle statute but leaving it out in the legal malpractise s plaintiff in this case in order to establish that he was injured had to use the conversion action judgment against him in the conversion ash now if the judgment is indicative version action is totally independent of any negligence of the lawyer earlier on because the conversion action was based on his refusal to train over the check number which you've got a link you've got a link that that checked me made out that was former you know yeah but there's no evidence of that check he said sharlee to his wife based on the and the earlier point in time when he goes through with the court all right he becomes aware of the twenty three of the complaint we're just looking for the area of which no no there question can be raised as to the appropriateness of a six nineteen disposition which is a summary disposition if it's a fact motion although it doesn't necessarily have to be that and that's were six fifteen and six nineteen in converge on judgment on the police but if it's a fact motion then there can't be any weighing of the evidence if there is a jury command and if there isn't then death be relegated to a separate proceed so anything that requires way ott is is problematical however at a conversion action itself is based on the behavior of your client by failing to turn over the check does it really have is there any evidentiary value to it with respect to establishing that that original marital supplement agreement was even but we don't need of evidence of that we could presumed that because even if we don't have a record that establishes that we could preserve that fact this position would preclude