Opinion ID: 597182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trustee's Claim for Professional Negligence

Text: 6 Count I of the trustee's complaint alleges professional malpractice by Albracht. On appeal, he contends that the two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice should not bar this claim because the Snovers and Albracht acted to conceal relevant information from him. The trustee did not argue in district court, however, that his ignorance of the claim for professional negligence could toll the statute of limitations. Therefore, he is barred from making this argument on appeal. Gardner v. Meyers, 491 F.2d 1184, 1190 (8th Cir.1974). 7 Even if we were to consider this argument on the merits, the trustee would not prevail. The trustee asserts that [t]he statute of limitations cannot run against the trustee in the absence of a showing that he was aware of the acts of malpractice or facts putting him on notice that malpractice had occurred. Appellants' brief, at 7. The trustee cites no authority for this proposition, however, and our review uncovered no support for this position. 8 It is well settled that a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the shoes of the debtor, and succeeds to all the assets of the bankrupt estate. Pappas v. Sommer, 240 Neb. 609, 483 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1992). However, the existence of a bankruptcy cannot grant the trustee a cause of action against third parties which would have been unavailable to the debtor. See In re Dow, 132 B.R. 853, 859 (E.D.Ohio 1991) (trustee can succeed to no greater rights than the debtors themselves possess). 9 Albracht rendered legal services to the Snovers from March 1984 through October 1985. The district court found from the Snovers' deposition testimony that they discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the present cause of action by March 1985. Stumpf v. Albracht, Memorandum Opinion at 5. (D.Neb. Feb. 25, 1991). Absent clear error, we must adopt the district court's factual finding on this matter. See McCook Equity Exch. v. Cooperative Servs. Co., 230 Neb. 758, 433 N.W.2d 509, 510 (1988) (the point at which the statute of limitations begins to run is a factual issue and the district court's decision will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous). Our reading of the depositions indicates that there was ample support in the record for this determination. Therefore, under either Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-222 or § 25-208, 4 the two-year statute of limitations began to run against the Snovers in March of 1985. 10 The trustee's complaint was not filed until January 4, 1989, well after the two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence had expired. While the trustee may have been unaware of the alleged malpractice prior to that time, the relevant inquiry is whether the Snovers knew or reasonably could have known of the alleged malpractice. The district court found that by March 1985, the Snovers were aware of the alleged malpractice. Therefore, on January 4, 1989, the Snovers no longer had a cause of action for professional negligence, and the trustee must stand in their shoes. The fact that the trustee, rather than the Snovers, filed the case cannot revive an issue that is barred by the statute of limitations.