thousand and eight when her divorce was settled but not the written order was never entered the original order income until april two thousand and nine when the defendant a new attorney who was not present at the settlement at the hearing became holly's attorney and the order instructed by the husband the ex husband's attorney mr wang so this order was entered then sits there deal the parties go back to court three or four times on motions imposed on all the issues that were contained in that original order in april two thousand and nine there was some you know discussion of reaffirmed how they were going to sell the property a couple different times then we get to february twenty second two thousand and ten when an offer of been made purchased the property settlement papers were prepared by the oil company donna missouri those papers were transmitted to colleagues friend who works for tel company who i also work with and that's when it came to this chance attention of the title company and she looked at the numbers and said and told holly numbers and policies i'm not getting the money or i was supposed to get this as i'm not going to get the extra fifty thousand it was agreed upon at the hearing i mean they did not go to on and we don't know if an injury would have occurred on february twenty fourth in the household or didn't sell they could get together up or six months later they could go lower there's no injury on the day the house was sold they could have then had this rolex watch that was very valuable to both parties he the husband kept her lips was he refused to return the watch so we continue to have the hearing that the husband is a you know inappropriate testimony it probably wasn't true you know or in the judge make a ruling the judge didn't rule based on the testimony of either party the judge ruled based on the fact that this plane had the opportunity to fix this and that so the actual injury that occurred on morse nineteen there's an affidavit in the record where she said i have this is what i received my checks i got the disbursement on twenty five thousand later on march nineteenth all speculative it could have been resolved it's not just the amount of damages that were in question we knew it was probably to be twenty five thousand and that's where judge me runnels i believe got it wrong what he stated in the docket entry which is a test to the a supplemental appendix pace for he's a plaintiff was aware he's by february two thousand and ten and she had a potential not practice claim and was where exactly what the potential damage was he's saying the damage time that the light bulb goes up to secures a set date and time that we know this is possibly wrongfully cause of the extent of this legal malpractise it's going to cause the injury that can't be reversed that occurred on march nineteenth  morning get put into the husband's pocket it's gone you're not getting  value for the money that you chose to do that this would be one of those cases so you agree i'll handle the closing for you or handle the issues revolving around that and that's the that was for that purpose only after march ninth march sixteenth would basically say that you know there was not an adverse ruling of the court until march sixteenth two thousand and ten that put holly a notice that this her injury which hadn't yet become actual damages was wrongfully caused by the defen and even if you were to find that she heard some attorney's fees after february twenty second and part of march sixteenth if you determine those are actual damages she didn't know until march sixteenth that it was wrongfully caused or want to set the precedent or upset the president's argument said that encourages more planes and legal markets to be filed but in this case it was appropriate only after the actual injury of the twenty five thousand which was attorney wearing represented the husband attorney ways to represent of the postman during this during the motion not pro talking throughout the proceedings attorney when this time became the attorney of record around march or april of two thousand and nine he's the one that with reynolds is handling this case message handle the end of the divorce case where he tried to fix the order with a motion of proton to say his descriptors are if we fix the order we send it to the title company in missouri they'll are brief and the ruling below is based on the statute of limitations for legal malpractise on the court of civil procedure section thirteen day two fourteen d which says that a legal malpractise case regardless of the basis for that claim must be brought within two years from the time person bringing the action new or recently should've known to be injury or which the damages have sought or question is what is the injury when did i have no hope or injury those are facts that show that she should she should be on inquiry and she should inquire further as to whether there's a cost possible cause and when did that happen in this case and i think the facts are clear she doesn't have to actually have noticed that there was no practice only that there's a problem that might have been caused by no practice which is that they have an injury and whe that occurred the injury actually occurred on april twenty nine two thousand and nine when the judgment was entered and if i can just briefly review the facts from the beginning then i get into that the entry of the judgment the complaint in this case says that i turn in when stein erred in allowing entry of the judgment for or dissolution marriage that did not conform to the in court settlement made a few months earlier now just to go back on these facts and review this on september nineteenth two thousand and eight the parties ali and douglas knight or appeared with their attorneys mr wang and attorney then that was put on the record and put in the transcript in april of two thousand and nine finally a judgment got prepared and at that time the judge was actually prepared by turning awa dissolution of marriage so that the property sole ali gets the first fifty thousand and then the balance as well and as the council said that's a twenty five thousand dollars difference in february of two thousand and ten when they finally got a buyer for the missouri property how how we got this closing statement and she conferred with her friend janice peterson at the title company and she at that time goes to attorney w and calls him up and says this is on the record in her deposition she says we've got to stop this closing there's a problem and he said you need to get a real estate attorney she then went to mr benson to judgment and pointed out the difference between the transcript from the september two thousand and eight hearing and the judgment in april with twenty i ten or twenty or not i'm sorry so by that time she knew there was an error in the judgment she knew what the error was and she blamed attorney when signed in fact in her deposition she testified that in february when she went to see mr benson she knew that there was a discrepancy between the important summit and what was in the driveway and she considered that discrepancy to be quote an error mr winston had may and all so by that time she knew that there was discrepancy and tell some time later but the injury was actually when the judge was entered and then drink was a final judgment within thirty days after april twenty ninth two thousand and nine when was  was that was the final word on how that money was going to get split on that property was soul and in the cases that we've cited but were the court set a plaintiff is injured at the time an adverse judgment is entered even if the amount of damages is uncertain or the judgment might later be reversed and that's what happened here that she was injured by according to what she's alleging in this case she was injured when that  judgment that was unfavorable to the client that's the key event that caught that is the injury and the same was true in sudan versus burma and in that case  posts from motions were denied and then there was an appeal taken and the appeal within a and then a legal malpractise suit was fine and the plaintiffs in the legal malpractise suit tried to say that they were filing within the staff of limitations a well we file within two with it was five years at that time we filed within five years of the date of the denial of the post from motions and it's not when the post from motion was denied it's not when the appeal was the not so the same thing would apply here the injury was when the court entered a well i guess that would be that would be a different situation she knew that the house and so and she knew what the proceedings were going to be in february of two thousand and and at the time she got the  exactly what the situation was at that time and when he she she never put two and two together she had a copy of the transcript and she had a captive judgment but she never compared to intel after she got the closing statement once the house was sold and they were about to close and finalized that transaction and that's that's when she realized and that's when the statute started to run at that  thousand and nine when goodman was injured she didn't know about that she had no reason to check on that and so a later day and she found out about that when she got this preliminary closing statement from from the people in missouri saying here's there's been unacceptable error made and that was that's what she had in february of two thousand and six and in fact she then hired mr benson and we have argued and continue to argue that once she normally handle the closing probably prepare a deed or something like that in real estate transit lee in my experience in real estate transaction it's not normal for the lawyer to try to file a moat in order motion for order not protons getting into the divorce case and trying to change the judgment that had been entered the better part of the year before back in april of two thousand and nine that's not the normal services of a real estate attorney a filing motions in a divorce case to try to change home from long ago energetic line deal with me that i'm not really sure why he didn't want to get involved but but he didn't the facts are he didn't get involved at that time but the question well the issue is that when the person bringing the action nor reasonably should know of the injury and and that was in february if you went to mr benson and cheap in the transcript for showing her attorneys fees to try to get that changed and you knew there was a problem and you were incurring attorneys fees to try to fix the problems of your damages started when you hired an attorney to try to fix the problem and that's exactly what we're saying here when she fired an attorney to try to fix what she knew was a problem which she said she considered to be in her mr winston made she had actual actionable damages and should have  i'm i understand what you're saying that maybe he should have stepped in and tried to get this straightened out back in february when she came to him with a problem that might have been that might have been good for him to do that but get i think that the mr weinstein it's a highly regarded divorce attorney who you know obviously took a long time for my clients who decided to take action to recover damages could actually damages and when she knew it was under an obviously in court where there was wrongfully cause was march nineteenth two thousand and ten and i didn't file it in the correct action the correct response was no it was february twenty six instead of filing a motion on proton that's that doesn't matter i don't believe that that doesn't magically that doesn't matter that i try to resolve this as it scribner's there is an honest mistake i don't believe mr waring try to put one over on anybody here i believe he inspections that you have a way out of the contract that you are you going to get the money resolve all the issues and he said this is a final been able to thousand i get wasn't because mr winston we're back to court three or four or five times and motions to supplement the what i'm saying also is he said there was an adverse judgment in april two thousand ites with a point of that meaning is there was no adverse a judgment judgment regarding how these contention that she didn't get the money she was supposed to get that happened on march sixteenth two thousand and ten property was was never an issue that was reviewed specifically there was other tissues that let's redo this order and it was still included but it was never discussed it was never argued any of those other polls show emotions so the first time anybody but they say you know the relationship between an attorney point is one where the attorneys charge a duty to ex girlfriend diligently given that duty is presumed the client is on a will to discern any misapplication of the liberties you can't hire an attorney to always watch the first time he's realize injuries actual damages that didn't happen until she received a check from the proceeds the sale there was a way out of this there was a way to say this isn't more practice this is just a mistake it's easily correctable we have a written  so you know you can i believe that the defense is trying to argue this both ways if i were to file this on february twenty second there was said this case isn't right it's premature the injury there's been no injuries or damages because