Opinion ID: 2295872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Verified Complaint

Text: The plaintiffs additionally challenge the hearing justice's dismissal of their verified complaint, arguing that the hearing justice's determination that their complaint was barred by the statute of limitations constitutes error. The hearing justice held that plaintiffs' allegation of breach of fiduciary duty was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations dealing with civil actions, namely, G.L.1956 § 9-1-13(a), [13] and that their negligence claims were barred by the three-year limitation for legal malpractice, as set forth in § 9-1-14.3. [14] On appeal, plaintiffs attempt to forestall the death knell for their claims by raising two related theories: the continuous course of conduct theory and the continuing representation doctrine. It is our opinion, however, that neither theory can revive their long-moribund allegations. This Court has held that a statute-of-limitations defense may be raised under Rule 12(b)(6), provid[ed that] the alleged timing defect appears on the face of the complaint. Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001). In reviewing a [Superior Court] justice's grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this Court assumes the allegations contained in the complaint to be true and views the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Id. at 297-98 (quoting St. James Condominium Association v. Lokey, 676 A.2d 1343, 1346 (R.I.1996)). This Court has cautioned that such a motion should not be granted `unless it appears to a certainty that [the plaintiffs] will not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which might be proved in support of [their] claim.' Id. at 298 (quoting Lokey, 676 A.2d at 1346). In the case at bar, the hearing justice held that: [T]he majority of allegations of mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duties stem from actions and omissions occurring within the time period beginning from the opening of the estate in 1976 and Factor's last act as co-executor in 1987. Because the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions commences upon occurrence of the incident which gave rise to the action not upon the last act as plaintiffs contend[,] [t]he plaintiffs' claims against both [K & K] and Factor must fail if considered as a separate action. Even if the plaintiffs were not initially aware of the injuries sustained as a result of the alleged malpractice, plaintiffs certainly were aware of the facts that would place a reasonable person on notice that a potential claim existed once the co-executors allegedly took over Intersection [Realty] and began selling properties. The hearing justice further determined that, regardless of whether the three-year statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim or the ten-year statute of limitations for civil actions claiming a breach of fiduciary duty applied in this case, the time [in] which the plaintiffs could have brought the claim stemming from the alleged mismanagement of the estate ha[d] expired. Our review of plaintiffs' verified complaint leads us to the same conclusion. All the facts set forth in the complaint that plaintiffs use to support their allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence allegedly occurred between February 3, 1976, and May 1987. Although the complaint asserts that Factor continued to act in some legal capacity, either as fiduciary of [the] estate, officer of Intersection Realty [or] attorney for the [p]laintiffs and that he presented an amended second, and third and final accounting in 2008, it does not refer to any specific wrongful conduct by him after 1987. Consequently, plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in § 9-1-13(a), and their malpractice allegations are barred by the three-year limitation period set forth in § 9-1-14.3. 1