Opinion ID: 1814233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying pierce's motion for partial directed verdict.

Text: ¶ 8. The standard of appellate review in considering a trial court's grant or denial of a directed verdict is well-settled in Mississippi. The grant or denial of a directed verdict is reviewed de novo. White v. Stewman, 932 So.2d 27, 32 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.1997) (citing Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage, 617 So.2d 248, 252 (Miss.1993))). Additionally, [T]his Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee [nonmovant], giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference [sic] that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant [movant] that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. White, 932 So.2d at 32 (quoting Steele, 697 So.2d at 376).
¶ 9. First, Pierce urges that his motion for partial directed verdict should have been granted as to Cook's claim for breach of contract. Essentially, Pierce asserts that Cook's claim for breach of contract is in reality a claim for legal malpractice, and Cook is thus required to provide expert testimony to support his claim of legal malpractice. Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 635 (Miss.1987); Dean v. Conn, 419 So.2d 148, 150 (Miss.1982) (expert testimony ordinarily is necessary to support an action for legal malpractice). ¶ 10. On the other hand, Cook alleges that he did not assert a claim for legal malpractice against Pierce. Instead, according to Cook, Pierce did not commit malpractice in the performance of his legal duties, but instead breached his fiduciary duty towards Cook when he had an adulterous affair with Kathleen. Therefore, Cook claims he was not required to prove the elements of legal malpractice nor was he required to provide expert testimony to support his claim for breach of contract. Cook's arguments notwithstanding, we will discuss Pierce's assertions that Cook's breach-of-contract claim is a camouflaged legal-malpractice claim. ¶ 11. In order to prevail on a claim for legal malpractice, one must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling the affairs of the client which have been entrusted to the lawyer; and (3) proximate cause of the injury. Hickox, 502 So.2d at 633. As to the second factor, a lawyer owes his client the duty to exercise the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by the members of the legal profession similarly situated. Failure to do so constitutes negligent conduct on the part of the lawyer. Id. at 634. As to the third factor, the plaintiff must show that but for their (sic) attorney's negligence, they would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. Id. See also Nause v. Goldman, 321 So.2d 304 (Miss.1975); Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., 186 So.2d 756 (Miss. 1966). ¶ 12. That being said, this Court has recognized that each lawyer owes his or her client certain duties which fall into three broad categories: (a) the duty of care; (b) a duty of loyalty; and (c) duties provided by contract. Singleton v. Stegall, 580 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Miss.1991). ¶ 13. In the second allegation of Cook's complaint entitled breach of contract and fiduciary duty, Cook alleges: As a result of the contractual attorney-client relationship entered into by and between PIERCE and COOK, PIERCE did owe to COOK a fiduciary duty of loyalty which prohibited PIERCE from undertaking representation directly adverse to COOK without COOK's consent. Further PIERCE had an obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of COOK even after the termination of his employment. PIERCE breached his fiduciary duty to COOK implied by the contractual agreement and legally imposed upon PIERCE . . . ¶ 14. Thus, Pierce contends Cook's claim falls within the ambits of a legal-malpractice claim, and [c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice. Byrd v. Bowie, 933 So.2d 899, 904 (Miss.2006) (quoting Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So.2d 92, 99 (Miss.2004)). ¶ 15. However, we acknowledged in Byrd that this Court had previously carved out some exceptions to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a legal malpractice claim. Byrd, 933 So.2d at 904 (citing Hickox, 502 So.2d at 635; Thompson, 186 So.2d at 759). Thus, this Court has recognized that experts are not required in all legal-malpractice cases. As such, Cook claims that even if he has asserted a claim for legal malpractice, he still was not required to provide expert testimony supporting his claim. ¶ 16. This Court stated in Byrd: In discussing the need for experts for legal malpractice actions, we stated: Moreover, attorneys involved in malpractice actions must always remember there is a pragmatic difference between the trial of other professional malpractice cases and a legal malpractice case. In the former class, the lawyers and judges are laymen. In professional malpractice cases, excepting extreme cases, we rely upon experts for guidance. The attorney who finds himself the defendant in a legal malpractice case, however, has a judge and the trial attorneys who are already experts. Hickox, 502 So.2d at 636. Furthermore, [i]t does not require expert testimony to establish the negligence of an attorney who is ignorant of the applicable statute of limitations or who sits idly by and causes the client to lose the value of his claim for relief. Id. (quoting George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 829 (N.M.Ct.App. 1979)). Byrd, 933 So.2d at 904-05. ¶ 17. In the end, we find that it is of no moment as to whether Cook's claim was one of legal malpractice or breach of contract. Even assuming arguendo that Cook asserted a claim for legal malpractice, Cook still was not required to provide expert testimony to support his claim. Clearly, based on the facts of this case, Cook did not need an expert to testify as to the standard of care owed by an attorney to his client. Ordinary jurors possess the requisite knowledge and lay expertise to determine if an adulterous affair between an attorney and his client's wife is a breach of a duty owed by an attorney to his client. Expert testimony would not lend guidance under this circumstance. ¶ 18. When we consider the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to Cook, as well as all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence, there is no doubt that there was before the jury evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded jurors, in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment, could have reached different conclusions as to the appropriate verdict. Thus the trial court's denial of Pierce's motion for a directed verdict on Cook's breach-of-contract claim is beyond our authority to disturb. Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Gray Corp., 972 So.2d 495, 505-06 (Miss.2007) (citing White, 932 So.2d at 32). ¶ 19. We find this issue to be without merit.
¶ 20. Next, Pierce asserts that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted as to Cook's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pierce claims that Cook is time-barred from asserting his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the one-year statute of limitations expired no later than February 1, 2002, and Cook did not file this action until December 23, 2002. Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (Rev. 2002); Slaydon v. Hansford, 830 So.2d 686, 689 (Miss.App.2002). ¶ 21. However, Cook argues that the intentional infliction of emotional distress was a continuing tort. As a continuing tort, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the date of the last injury. Smith v. Sneed, 638 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss.1994). Cook claims the date of the last injury was the day that the divorce decree was entered on June 3, 2002; therefore, according to Cook, his claim is timely, since he filed suit on December 23, 2002, well within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. ¶ 22. To adequately address this issue, we briefly outline here the pertinent procedural history: Event: Date: Cook and Kathleen ceased marital cohabitation 09-01-2000 Affair between Pierce and Kathleen started 09-30-2000 Divorce filed 10-2000 Pierce's deposition 01-29-2001 Kathleen's deposition 02-15-2001 Divorce decree entered 06-03-2002 Complaint filed 12-23-2002 ¶ 23. Pierce asserts that both he and Kathleen admitted under oath in their sworn depositions which took place January 29, 2001, and February 15, 2001, respectively, that they had been having an adulterous affair. Pierce admittedly does not expressly state that he had sexual relations with Kathleen, but instead Pierce pleaded the Fifth Amendment. On the other hand, Kathleen openly admitted in her deposition that she and Pierce had sexual relations beginning in September 2000, and the record clearly reveals that Cook was present at the time of Kathleen's deposition. Therefore, Pierce claims that, even giving Cook the benefit of the doubt, the latest possible time the statute of limitations could have begun to run on Cook's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was February 15, 2001. Pierce thus claims that the statute of limitations ran on February 15, 2002, and that, as a result, Cook's complaint, filed on December 23, 2002, was not timely. Therefore, he says, the trial court should have granted his motion for partial directed verdict on this issue. ¶ 24. Conversely, Cook argues that the date of the divorce decree was the date of the last injury; thus, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until June 3, 2002. According to Cook, since he filed suit on December 23, 2002, his lawsuit was timely filed under the applicable statute of limitations. ¶ 25. We previously have defined the continuing tort doctrine as follows: [W]here a tort involves a continuing or repeated injury, the cause of action accrues at, and limitations begin to run from, the date of the last injury, or when the tortious acts cease. Where the tortious act has been completed, or the tortious acts have ceased, the period of limitations will not be extended on the ground of a continuing wrong. A continuing tort is one inflicted over a period of time; it involves a wrongful conduct that is repeated until desisted, and each day creates a separate cause of action. A continuing tort sufficient to toll a statute of limitations is occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from an original violation. Stevens v. Lake, 615 So.2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993) (emphasis in original) (quoting C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 177 at 230-31 (1987)). A few years after Stevens, we again addressed the continuing tort doctrine in Smith v. Franklin Custodian Funds, Inc., 726 So.2d 144 (Miss.1998). Addressing our decision in Stevens, we stated: Indeed, we opined that continuing or repeated injuries can give rise to liability even if they persist outside the time period for the initial injury, but we noted that the defendant must commit repeated acts of wrongful conduct. Stevens, 615 So.2d at 1183 (citing Hendrix v. City of Yazoo City, 911 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir.1990)). We have held that we will not apply the continuing tort doctrine when harm reverberates from one wrongful act or omission. Id. Smith, 726 So.2d at 148-49 (Miss.1998). ¶ 26. Returning to today's case, Cook testified to several wrongful acts by Pierce that occurred until the divorce which constituted repeated wrongful conduct, causing Cook emotional distress. Not only did Pierce take Kathleen on a trip to New Orleans during which they had sexual relations, but Pierce flaunted his involvement with Kathleen in front of Cook at a local restaurant in Jackson. Furthermore, there is tape-recorded evidence in which Pierce's voice is in the background clearly coaching Kathleen concerning what to say to Cook. Pierce himself called Cook on his birthday, allegedly apologizing for the situation with Kathleen. Based on this evidence, the Court finds there was repeated wrongful contact by Pierce. We thus find that the trial court did not err in tolling the statute of limitations until the date of the divorce decree. Therefore, Cook's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. For these reasons, we find this issue also to be without merit.