Title: Robert L. Wilhelm v. Steve P. Frampton Permissive appeal from decision re statute of limitations on an action to recover allegedly excessive fee charged by an attorney

State: idaho

Issuer: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 32922
ROBERT L. WILHELM,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEVE P. FRAMPTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Coeur d’Alene, April 2007 Term
2007 Opinion No.  63
Filed: April 27, 2007
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho,
in and for Kootenai County.  The Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.
The order of the district court is reversed.
Ian D. Smith, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant.
Amendola Andersen & Doty, PLLC, Coeur d’Alene, for respondent.  Gary
Amendola argued.
EISMANN, Justice.
This is a permissive appeal from a decision holding that the statute of limitations on an
action to recover an allegedly excessive fee charged by an attorney was tolled while nonbinding
fee arbitration proceedings were pending before the Idaho State Bar.  We hold that the statute of
limitations was not tolled and reverse.
I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May and June 1997, Robert Wilhelm (Wilhelm) was arrested on two drug-related
felony charges.  He retained attorney Steven Frampton to represent him on both cases.  On June
15, 1998, Wilhelm was sentenced to an indeterminate term of life in the custody of the Idaho
Board of Correction, with a minimum period of confinement of seven and one-half years.
Wilhelm paid Frampton about $30,000 for his services.
2
In February 1999, Wilhelm wrote Frampton requesting an itemization of the services he
had rendered for the fees charged.  By letter dated March 3, 1999, Frampton refused to provide
the information, stating that he had already provided Wilhelm with an itemization of all hourly
charges and a description of the services rendered.  He added that he had purged his computer
records after sending a copy of Wilhelm’s file to his new counsel.
On March 9, 1999, Wilhelm filed a complaint with the Idaho State Bar (Bar) stating that
he had paid Frampton $30,000 for legal services worth no more than $10,000 and asking the Bar
to seize Frampton’s computer to see if the files could be recovered from its hard drive.  Wilhelm
also alleged that Frampton had previously stated that he had a copy of the documents in storage
and asked the Bar to order Frampton to provide them.  Wilhelm concluded by stating that once
he received the records, he intended to file a complaint for fraud.
The Bar asked Frampton to provide the records requested by Wilhelm.  Frampton located
his records and provided billing information, although Wilhelm disputed its accuracy and
completeness.  After several exchanges with the Bar, Wilhelm asked for information regarding
fee arbitration.  Finally, on November 29, 1999, the Bar sent Wilhelm a letter stating that bar
counsel had concluded that Frampton had not violated the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
A fee arbitration packet was enclosed with the letter.  On February 18, 2000, Wilhelm asked that
bar counsel’s decision be reviewed and that Wilhelm’s allegations of fraud also be reviewed.
A hearing committee of the Professional Conduct Board was appointed to hear Wilhelm’s
appeal of bar counsel’s decision.  It scheduled a telephone hearing on June 13, 2000.  The
hearing committee held the hearing by telephone, and on June 22, 2000, it issued its written
opinion.  It found that there was not sufficient evidence of fraud but remanded the case for bar
counsel to conduct a further investigation into whether Frampton’s recordkeeping and billing
practices constituted a violation of Rule 1.5(f) of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.  Bar
counsel then commenced an investigation into the concerns expressed by the hearing committee
in its decision.
On June 12, 2000, the day prior to the telephonic hearing before the hearing committee,
Wilhelm filed a civil action against Frampton to recover damages.  Frampton filed a motion to
dismiss that action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, contending
that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Idaho Code § 5-219.  On October 30,
2000, the district court entered an order dismissing the claim of fraud.  Frampton then filed a
3
motion to dismiss under Rule 4(a)(2) for failure to serve process timely.  Wilhelm filed a notice
stating he had no objection to that motion.  The district court construed the motion and lack of
objection as a stipulation to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), and on February 23, 2001, it entered
an order dismissing any remaining claims without prejudice.
On July 27, 2001, bar counsel issued a written opinion regarding her investigation into
Frampton’s recordkeeping and billing practices.  Bar counsel determined that Frampton had
complied sufficiently with Rule 1.5(f) and concluded that the grievance should be dismissed.
Wilhelm appealed bar counsel’s decision.  A second hearing committee was appointed, and on
March 29, 2002, it issued its decision finding that Frampton had violated Rule 1.5(f) and
recommending a private reprimand.  Both parties sought review by this Court, which upheld the
private reprimand.
On November 29, 1999, and again on February 28, 2000, the Bar had sent Wilhelm a
packet of forms and information to request fee arbitration.  On October 16, 2000, Wilhelm
requested fee arbitration.  Frampton refused to consent to binding arbitration, and the Bar
declined to proceed with the arbitration.  On appeal, this Court held that the rules in effect at the
time required the Bar to still conduct the proceedings even if it would be nonbinding because the
attorney refused to consent to binding arbitration.  An arbitration panel heard the matter on
January 17, 2005.  The next day it issued its written decision finding that Wilhelm had paid
Frampton $29,929; that the reasonable value of the services rendered by Frampton was $5,320;
and that Wilhelm was entitled to a refund of $24,609.
On May 20, 2005, Wilhelm filed this action seeking excessive fees allegedly charged by
Frampton under a breach of contract theory.  On June 24, 2005, Frampton moved to dismiss this
action on the ground that Wilhelm’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations.  Relying upon
an opinion by the Georgia court of appeals, Antinoro v. Browner, 478 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. Ct. App.
1996), the district court held that the statute of limitations on Frampton’s claim was tolled from
March 9, 1999, when he filed a complaint with the Bar, until January 18, 2005, when the
arbitration panel issued its decision.  It therefore denied Frampton’s motion to dismiss.  We
granted Frampton’s motion for a permissive appeal.
4
II.  ANALYSIS
“Statutes of limitation in Idaho are not tolled by judicial construction but rather by the
expressed language of the statute.”  Independent School Dist. of Boise City v. Callister, 97 Idaho
59, 63, 539 P.2d 987, 991 (1975).  There is no statute in Idaho that tolls the running of the statute
of limitations in cases such as this one.  Idaho Code § 5-234 does provide, “When the
commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition the time of the
continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement
of the action.”  There was no injunction or statute that stayed Wilhelm’s action against Frampton
or that barred him from commencing this action until the nonbinding arbitration was completed.
Therefore, the district court erred in holding that the statute of limitations was tolled by the
pendency of the nonbinding fee arbitration proceedings.  In a situation such as this, the client
must file the lawsuit and ask the court to stay it pending the completion of the fee arbitration
proceedings.
III.  CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court holding that the statute of limitations was tolled in this
case is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.  We award costs on appeal to
the appellant.
Chief Justice SCHROEDER, and Justices TROUT, BURDICK and JONES CONCUR.