because while this may not be an easy case it's a simple case and i want to start here that the pugsley case was correctly decided and the trial judge was correct in following in every case i submit where the basis of the lawsuit is a renunciation of the will you will never be under subsection d of the limitations that it is a logical and possibility because the injury can never occur at the death of the client other things have to happen will has to be admitted then later down the road there asia and all of the cases starting with the peterson case i believe that was just a still rights case all the cases that follow it including justice garments case in the snyder case say that the literal language in subsection v that says until the death of the client means up on the death of the client that grace is repeated through he was doing swimmingly well if banks had have passed according to his will there would have been no problem at all but after the expiration  claims and on the last day within which the will could be renounced the widow renounced that's when the estate was  what we have to go to since we're not under subsection d of the limitations act by definition we go to subsection b which gives the usual two year statute of limitations  renunciation because of the plain language in the pre marital would agree the executor didn't get done what had to be done to make the premarital agreement effect in this case the issue is that would be subsection c of the limitations act the statute of repose now that's and i said this i think the trial judge in this case did an excellent job you just hope that you get a trial judge like that every time someone who reads the record studies it banks about it writes about it but i think he was wrong on subsections see now remember w what i'm saying in this case is that there was never an omission that we can look to until the date of mr mcnaught there and that's  i agree that you've narrowed it down to what the issue is but here's my question with the cricket case it tells us that the omissions must occur in the context of some of the act of representation and that when that after representation ends the period of repose must be and even if the continuing omissions may contribute to the injury and therein lies the rub there in lies the rub and i think that a careful reading of fredricka his cabinet and it's happened because it shows when the representation in which this premarital agreement was the beginning of the representation and the representation never ended now there is in the a pelleas brief a statement that says there's no basis for that but attached to the plaintiff's complaint is attorney barton's affidavit and he said to the best of my knowledge i was the only lawyer who continued to represent mr make not until the date of despair when he went about o'brian that talks about the last act of representation with regard to the omission upon which the malpractise is founded that's the critical date the trickiest statute o'brian i think is the key to this case if my memory doesn't fail that was just president's decision and what happened in that case almost like this course the lawyer was required to produce a quadro one of these things that says how your pensions are going to be divided down the row he didn't do it his client then sued him because he didn't do it she didn't get the pants in time and passed but the key to that case is the relationship between the attorney and the client has ended she was afraid as it relates to the divorce proceeding and the preparation of the podger all he basically said i will no longer represent you on this we don't have similar facts in this case well what happened what happened in this case and remember the standard here is an objective standard mr barton didn't understand the import of the agreement that he drafted he thought it meant didn't but that's his subjective reason for his blunder and the test is objective but a reasonable person would do and in as much as escaped this court has said it plainly required this this was off the table he continued to represent this decision now he may say when i say well to the best of my knowledge but this of not to at least create a she wouldn't hire a lawyer the lawyer said i'm finished that didn't happen that didn't happen here that when you think about a case like this and you think about the statute the legislature said we have x and we have omissions and to a certain extent we've conflated those but we're all bound by president giuf are we all up but there's absolutely no reason suspect that text out of all reasonable analysis to defeat this claim you know i want to be very careful about my language here but this is the seed and i wanted his natural daughter to get his estate not his younger wife he retained a lawyer to do that the lawyer got a start up but as i say in my in my papers this premarital agreement didn't do anything it really just said here's where we are but we have got to do these things we didn't get these things done because the lawyer didn't understand what he had written it never it never got nothing out i want to leave you with this though all of this was completely executive ory things had to be done the scope of the representation in this case was to protect this estate from the wi that's what it was for if mr parker had prepared the trust or amended the will that they before mr macdonald died there would be no omission and i'm saying if the p m a said this is to be done in seven years down the road and it wasn't done no one would say that there wasn't an omission as of seven years down the road it's just said during his lifetime so this is this is not you don't have a problem here that the that that we're looking at so i you know when i'm starting to write a motion or a reply or have to leave and go back to the complaints they are one of my really dealing with and if you look at the specific allegations in the complaint there's to some paragraph years so i think we're ok that we're clear so that leaves us with a which is intentionally did not track the estate planning documents because he thought that the provisions in the prior last will and testament which was actually drafted back in two thousand and three satisfy the requirements and p m a well the trial court pointed out that really using that language this the key date was that preparing of the p m a the june twentieth of two thousand and six because they're saying that my client had an incorrect belief and that he was negligent in believing back on that day that there was nothing else to do everything was done that that cam a would be valid that p m a would be effectual that the premarital gree whole complaint this time barred however the reason that we also raise it in our brief is because obviously this court can affirm the trial court's dismissal based on any other facts in the record and we believe that regardless of whether you look at be alleged a address in detail that was a situation where there was a claim negligent preparation of a quit claim deed and then there was a failure to discover that that land was actually held in trust now that discovery didn't happen until after b the individual who's going to be transferring the property died and again the only supreme court was very clear in saving the purpose of a statute of repose it has nothing to do with when you discover the injury and has nothing to do with when the after a fixed period of time and that's the onus from court appeals for nineteen of that center behind upper case it begins to run when a specific event occurs regardless of whether the action has actually crude so again the focus of subsection c is is the date when the cla do list or saying that the p m a was simply a list of things that needed to be done in the future and i'd also like to address that the claim that there is a continuous representation but the maori view grouping case is very clear and that there's there's no continuous and moreover the appellate court in marty rathbun also said that even if there were such a doctrine there needs to be specific allegations that each negligent treatment or negligent action has to add to the harm and it talks about calming effects  aggregate there are no such allegations in the complaint there's no such article allegations in this case so even if there were a continuing course of negligent representation doctrine for legal malpractise in the state of illinois this case doesn't have any of those  affidavit that was referred to talking about a continuous representation if you look at it is on the record on page eight the statement specifically wasn't that there is continue representation was simply that mr barnes stated quote to my knowledge i was david's only attorney from two thousand and three until his death i'm matters involving estate planning or real estate and quote that's a very different statement than saying i continuously represented him i continue to make provisions to as well as he was asking me to do things and i was constantly working on them in this case there's absolutely no allegation whatsoever that mr barton did any work whatsoever since june twenty eighth of two thousand and six and your honour's are correct in that  practice claim involving me a preparation of a deed and that i think is very interesting because it also doubt with the claim that there is no mission that could have prevented the injury in that case the attorney prepared the deed gave it to the bank the bank then sent it to be an individual sign if it was sent to the individual on february twelfth of one thousand nine hundred two it wasn't even signed into march twentieth of may one thousand nine hundred two now when the legal malpractise cases filed they tried claiming that march twentieth should have been the effective date and the court said no actually because that's not when he's finished his work he must have finished his work when he sent the deed to the bank which had to be prior to february so they actually want to step further in this case whereas i'm i'm arguing ok we know for fact that the p m a was signed on june twenty eighth in french and they actually went a step further with that and said well you must have drafted the p m a are in for in this case the deed prior to that date so the statute had to start running prior to nevertheless the court and o'brien specifically said that even if the divorce judgment contemplated by plaintiffs argued a to do list i e and someone will be preparing a quadro to affection wait th case that the court was very clear in that you know there was that the representation and then there is no evidence that the attorney did anything else for that client and notwithstanding the client's claim that he should have also prepared a project much like the pla assume that there was any continuing course of representation back then and even if we were to sume that the p m a was a to do list and that mr barton agreed to do all those things as opposed to mr meek not having to get someone else to do them on the death of the client what i'm wondering is how can that apply here when we know that we had to have the extra step of the renunciation if he had died and there had been no been had the will not been readouts i don't think that what was the injury assuming the will was not renounce there may not have been actual damages but there certainly could have been a claim made there would have been an injury to the state and that have has sustained any actual damages i agree with your honor there but i do believe that the fact that the p m a was found to be an effective in preventing her having a right to renounce i think that in that sense whacker can be instructed whackers talks about how the injury became irreparable following the death so in this case if the injury is preventing the possibility of an unknown sea ation that injury became a prepare last month testament documents whacker a specific that the date of injury is on the docket because that's the point where everything's cut off you can't you can't fix to the last will and testament after that point and even under a subsection d framework in that case there was a failure to convey real estate when did that then decide it was a lie the attorney specifically sat i'll take care of it i will do that and he was supposed to be severing that joint tenancy and dealing  we're dealing with a conveyance a president conveys the injury occurred the when you're deprived of your interest in the estate right there whether you know about it or not is not the analysis you this is not such this is not such a case now i hope i make this clear but there is a subtle distinction here the affidavit of mr bar explains why he didn't do something but that's not what the negligent omission is that is his subjective thank the test is objective what would a reasonable man do under the circumstances so at no time during mr mc nobs live could he have filed any type of claim if he said for i'm suing you because i paid you to do this for me and you haven't done the answer of course and a complete answer is wait a minute i didn't say when i would do it i just have to do it while you're alive and i'm going to to it next week that is almost an unanswerable proposition in no time so long as mr mc not lived could he have demanded that his lawyer do so now it is also true it is also true that a better lawyer than me could have probably drafted a more complete complain if he had done discovery if he had the file if he knew all these things but remember this motion here is an affirmative defense it's an affirmative defense in admits everything well pleaded in my complain so that's that's the next thing the wacko case was a trust case it wasn't it wasn't a convenience and that the main significance i think of while crowe is explained by justice garman in the peterson case and what and what what she teaches us is that they're the sister of the clock it was not in pile to anything as long as her brother lived it was only when he died that she was then entitled to this house so she thought but the lawyer had bungled this some time ago and in that case subsection b from several things so speak trumps everything now the last thing i want to leave you with there's a there's a lot of talk here about seo claims it has to be cut off somewhere ok but keep in mind that often subsection d will revive an ancient claim remember in peter's justice kilbride's case the plaintiff wanted to fit into subsection b and he did if we if the plaintiff in this case were somehow able to maneuver this case into subsection d it wouldn't matter if the negligible mission happened fifty years ago it would still be it would still be actionable i do think i do think and these are the cases that i cited the the the o'brien and scope of case i think the opinion they're pretty clear that client had maintained her representation  lawyer he was on the hook for not doing it that's certainly a part that's certainly a part of it because when you think about it a premarital agreement that require something to be done later doesn't do anything it doesn't change a relationship of the parties