Opinion ID: 4542573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: Reduced to its essence, the Dondlingers argue that the continuous relationship doctrine tolled the statute of limitations, thereby giving them 2 years to file their legal malpractice case after learning of their attorneys’ alleged negligence. The Dondlingers claim that the district court erred when it ruled that because the continuous relationship did not apply, the Dondlingers’ complaint was subject to the 1-year discovery rule and was time barred. We find no merit to the Dondlingers’ argument and therefore affirm the dismissal of the Dondlingers’ action. [3-5] In this case, the appellees successfully moved for summary judgment. The primary purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to pierce the allegations in the pleadings and show conclusively that the controlling facts are other than as pled. Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr., 304 Neb. 312, 934 N.W.2d 186 (2019). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332(1) (Cum. Supp. 2018) provides in part that a motion for summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” The party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie case by producing enough evidence to show that the movant is entitled to judgment if the evidence were uncontroverted at trial. Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr., supra. If the party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce evidence showing the existence of a - 900 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 material issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of law. Id. The Dondlingers’ legal malpractice action is a claim of professional negligence, and we turn to § 25-222 to determine the timeliness of the cause of action. Section 25-222 provides: Any action to recover damages based on alleged professional negligence or upon alleged breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional services shall be commenced within two years next after the alleged act or omission in rendering or failure to render professional services providing the basis for such action; Provided, if the cause of action is not discovered and could not be reasonably discovered within such two-year period, then the action may be commenced within one year from the date of such discovery or from the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier; and provided further, that in no event may any action be commenced to recover damages for professional negligence or breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional services more than ten years after the date of rendering or failure to render such professional service which provides the basis for the cause of action. [6] If a claim for professional negligence in the nature of legal malpractice is not to be considered time barred, the plaintiff must either file within 2 years of an alleged act or omission or show that its action falls within the discovery exception of § 25-222 or has been tolled pursuant to the continuous representation rule. See Guinn v. Murray, 286 Neb. 584, 837 N.W.2d 805 (2013). We discussed the two exceptions to the 2-year provision in § 25-222 in recent case law. See Guinn, supra. [7-10] With regard to the discovery rule, in Guinn, we stated: The discovery rule as it pertains to professional negligence claims is set forth in §25-222, quoted above. By the terms of the statute, the discovery rule applies only - 901 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 when the cause of action is not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered within the 2-year limitations period. If the discovery rule applies, then the limi­ tations period is 1 year from the time the cause of action is or could have been discovered. “Discovery,” in the context of statutes of limitations, refers to the fact that one knows of the existence of an injury and not that one has a legal right to seek redress. Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Universal Surety Co., 246 Neb. 495, 519 N.W.2d 530 (1994). It is not necessary that a plaintiff have knowledge of the exact nature or source of the problem, but only that a problem existed. Id. In a professional negligence case, “discovery of the act or omission” occurs when the party knows of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the knowledge of facts constituting the basis of the cause of action. Gering - Ft. Laramie Irr. Dist. v. Baker, 259 Neb. 840, 612 N.W.2d 897 (2000). In a cause of action for professional negligence, legal injury is the wrongful act or omission which causes the loss. Id. Legal injury is not damage; damage is the loss resulting from the misconduct. See id. 286 Neb. at 597-98, 837 N.W.2d at 817. [11] With regard to the continuous relationship rule, in Guinn, we stated: [T]he statute of limitations for a claim of professional negligence is tolled if there is a continuity of the relationship and services for the same or related subject matter after the alleged professional negligence. Bellino v. McGrath North, 274 Neb. 130, 738 N.W.2d 434 (2007). However, we have limited the reach of the continuous representation rule by stating that continuity does not mean mere continuity of the general professional relationship and that the continuous representation rule is inapplicable when the claimant discovers the alleged negligence prior to the termination of the professional - 902 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 relationship. See Reinke Mfg. Co. v. Hayes, 256 Neb. 442, 590 N.W.2d 380 (1999). 286 Neb. at 598, 837 N.W.2d at 817. The Dondlingers contend that they learned of the appellees’ alleged negligence within 30 days after June 23, 2016. The complaint was filed on May 18, 2018. Given that the 1-year discovery rule would not save their action, the Dondlingers rely instead on the continuous representation rule to contend their action was timely filed because the legal malpractice action did not accrue until the conclusion of their first appeal and the termination of their professional relationship with the appellees. [12] As noted, the controlling principle of law since at least Economy Housing Co. v. Rosenberg, 239 Neb. 267, 475 N.W.2d 899 (1991), is that if the client discovers the act or omission prior to the termination of the attorney’s representation, then the continuous representation exception does not apply. In Economy Housing Co., we explained that “[t]o hold otherwise would merely encourage clients to sit on their hands, with full knowledge of negligence on the part of the professional who is serving them, knowing that the clock would not start to run on their claim until they actually fired the practitioner.” 239 Neb. at 269, 475 N.W.2d at 900. To determine whether the continuous representation exception applies, the record would need to demonstrate when the Dondlingers learned of the act or omission and, in particular, whether that occurred prior to or after the end of the appellees’ representation. In an effort to show that the Dondlingers learned of the error prior to the termination of their representation, the appellees offered Nelson’s affidavit, which, as previously quoted, states in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: 5. During the course of the representation of Terry Dondlinger and Valerie Dondlinger, I initiated a telephone conference between myself and Terry Dondlinger and Valerie Dondlinger. In this telephone conference, - 903 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 I personally informed [them] regarding the District Court’s finding that we did not properly serve Nickerson Township. This is the alleged negligence that is set forth in [their] Complaint in the above-captioned matter. We discussed at length the facts and circumstances which led to the dismissal and the appeal. 6. I advised Terry and Valerie Dondlinger that our representation of them would end, and that we would be closing their file, after advising them of the alleged negligence at issue in this Complaint. This fact is reflected in [the Dondlingers’] Statement of Undisputed Facts. [13] If uncontroverted, this evidence satisfied the appellees’ objective to establish that the Dondlingers learned of the error during the attorney-client relationship, thus triggering the 1-year discovery period in § 25-222 and rendering the complaint filed on May 18, 2018, untimely. At this point, the burden with respect to this issue shifted to the Dondlingers to overcome the evidence that their complaint was time barred. In this regard, we have noted that where the movant for summary judgment submits an affidavit as to a material fact, and that fact is not contradicted by the adverse party, the court will determine that there is no issue as to that fact. Boyle v. Welsh, 256 Neb. 118, 589 N.W.2d 118 (1999). A review of the record shows that by virtue of the evidence, including paragraph 9 of the amended complaint and answer thereto, it is undisputed that one attorney and the Dondlingers participated in a communication during which the attorney advised the Dondlingers that no petition for further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court would be filed after the Court of Appeals dismissed the Dondlingers’ appeal. The time for filing a petition for further review is 30 days. Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-102(F)(1) (rev. 2015). We logically understand that this communication occurred within the period available for filing such a petition for further review, i.e., within 30 days after the dismissal by the Court of Appeals. According to the Nelson affidavit, the conversation included an explanation of - 904 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 the underlying act or omission and an indication that the attorneys would end the relationship. The Dondlingers’ answers to interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 stated as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state the date that your attorney-client relationship with Defendants ended. ANSWER: See Complaint. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Within thirty (30) days after June 23, 2016. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state the date that you discovered the fact that Defendants “negligently failed to properly file a Tort Claim pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivision Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-901 et seq.”, as alleged in paragraph six of your Amended Complaint in this action. ANSWER: See Response to Request for Admissions. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Within thirty (30) days after June 23, 2016. No party asserts a date upon which the attorney-client relationship ended, but given the exchange regarding filing a petition for further review, and inferring a date favorable to the Dondlingers, the termination happened during the 30-day period available for filing a petition for further review, following the Court of Appeals’ dismissal in May 2016. Based on the Dondlingers’ responses to interrogatories, it is possible that the Dondlingers learned of the error on any day either before or after the termination of the relationship, but in any event, occurring during the 30 days “after June 23, 2016.” Having reviewed the record, it is clear that the Dondlingers have failed to specifically assert that they did not learn of the error until after the termination of the relationship, as they needed to demonstrate to take advantage of the continuous representation rule. Because the appellees carried their evidentiary burden and showed that the Dondlingers were advised of the error prior to the termination of the relationship, it was incumbent on the Dondlingers to controvert this - 905 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports DONDLINGER v. NELSON Cite as 305 Neb. 894 assertion; otherwise, their complaint was untimely filed. The Dondlingers have not provided evidence which controverts that of the appellees. [14] We recognize that the Dondlingers’ evidence identifies a 30-day period during which they learned of the appellees’ act or omission, and we are aware that at the summary judgment stage, inferences should be in favor of the nonmoving party. However, although we must infer facts favorable to the Dondlingers, we are not permitted to speculate. Conclusions based on guess, speculation, conjecture, or a choice of possibilities do not create material issues of fact for purposes of summary judgment. Pitts v. Genie Indus., 302 Neb. 88, 921 N.W.2d 597 (2019). In this case, there is no categorical inference that the Dondlingers learned of the appellees’ negligent action or omission after the end of the relationship. Although there is a possibility, the Dondlingers did not assert they were unaware of the error until after the termination of the relationship. Given all the evidence and giving the Dondlingers the favorable inferences, their evidence amounts to the following: During the period for filing a petition for further review, we learned of the error on a date which might have been after the appellees terminated the relationship. The appellees’ evidence that they communicated the error prior to the end of the ­attorney-client relationship stands uncontroverted.