Opinion ID: 2376348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discovery Exception for Title Opinions

Text: [¶ 8] The Johansons contend, however, that even if the Maine statute of limitations applies, it did not begin to run until they discovered Dunnington's malpractice. They rely on the limited discovery exception to the standard six-year statute of limitations regarding title opinions. The applicable section provides: In actions alleging professional negligence or breach of contract, for legal service, by a licensed attorney, the statute of limitations shall start to run from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury and not from the discovery of the malpractice, negligence or breach of contract, except: A. In an action alleging professional negligence in the rendering of a real estate title opinion. 14 M.R.S.A. § 753-A (emphasis added). In order to bring their claims within this exception, the Johansons contend that the work Dunnington performed in connection with the sale of their property constituted the equivalent of the rendering of a real estate title opinion. We agree with the Superior Court that it did not. [¶ 9] Nothing alleged in the Johansons's complaint presents a credible argument that Dunnington undertook any action that was equivalent to rendering a title opinion. Dunnington drafted the mortgage deed, the note, and the bill of sale. The Johansons do not allege that he searched the title, issued a formal title opinion, or actually rendered any opinion as to the accuracy of the title. [3] As the Superior Court concluded, Dunnington simply did not render a real estate title opinion. Although Dunnington may have acted negligently in providing legal advice and counsel to his clients, none of his alleged actions could be found to constitute the rendering of a title opinion. [4] Thus, the statute of limitations on the Johansons's claims against Dunnington ran in 1996 and the court properly dismissed their claims as time-barred.