Court Opinion

ID: 9368230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 15:05:25.864444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.426811
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2021-CA-0354-MR

PHILLIP E. EDMONDSON                                              APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE C. RENE’ WILLIAMS, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00094

DAX R. WOMACK AND WOMACK
LAW OFFICE, LLC                                                    APPELLEES

                                  OPINION
                                 AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: Appellant, Phillip E. Edmondson (Edmondson), filed a

Complaint in Union Circuit Court on August 5, 2020, against Appellees Dax R.

Womack and Womack Law Office, LLC (Womack Law). According to the circuit

court, Edmondson alleged that Appellees never returned $35,000.00 of a

$50,000.00 cash bond Edmondson assigned to Appellees. However, neither party
nor the circuit court elaborates much further concerning the underlying factual

foundation of the present claim. Pursuant to the complaint, however, Appellees

represented Edmondson on appeal from his criminal conviction for child sexual

abuse. See Edmondson v. Commonwealth, 526 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. 2017) (reversed

and remanded for new trial). Edmondson agreed to pay for his representation, and

to protect against a potential civil claim arising from the underlying alleged crimes,

by assigning a $50,000.00 cash bond to Appellees. Edmondson states that he and

Appellees agreed to remit $35,000.00 of that sum to Edmondson, the difference

representing counsel’s fees. Thereafter, Edmondson claims that Womack informed

him that he would not be receiving the remaining $35,000.00 balance because the

Union Circuit Court revoked the bond and would be retaining the entire

$50,000.00 sum. Instead, the record indicates that Appellees were paid the total

amount. In his reply brief, Edmondson alleges that because he could not afford to

pay Womack to retry his criminal case, he reluctantly entered an Alford plea. See

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).

                The circuit court dismissed the claim pursuant to CR1 12.02(f) as

untimely filed under the one-year statute of limitations (SOL), KRS2 413.245,

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                           -2-
titled “Actions for Professional Service Malpractice.” See also Seiller Waterman,

LLC v. RLB Properties, Ltd.,

            Without language restricting the application of KRS
            413.245 to claims not involving malice, the plain
            language of the statute directs that the one-year limitation
            applies to any claim against an attorney arising out of any
            act or omission in rendering or failing to render
            professional services.

610 S.W.3d 188, 204 (Ky. 2020), reh’g denied (Sept. 24, 2020). See also

Abel v. Austin, 411 S.W.3d 728, 738 (Ky. 2013) (“[W]e see no reason to believe

that the General Assembly intended to subject claims of attorneys’ misconduct to

two different limitations periods.”). Edmondson appeals to this Court as a matter

of right. Our standard of review is de novo and further discussed in Fox v.

Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010). For the following reasons, we affirm.

            Edmondson argues that because his claim is for fraud or mistake, the

court should have applied the five-year SOL under KRS 413.120. The circuit court

disagreed and instead determined that “[Edmondson’s] claims against [Appellees]

allegedly occurred in March 2017 or earlier and the Complaint in this action was

filed on August 5, 2020. [Edmondson’s] claims against [Appellees] are clearly

beyond the one-year [SOL] provided [under] KRS 413.245.” In so holding, the

court noted that Edmonson’s Complaint states that ”[a]t all times referenced

herein, [Womack] was acting within the scope of his employment with [Womack

Law].” We believe that the underlying claims at issue here clearly arose from an

                                        -3-
attorney-client relationship between the parties. Therefore, we agree with the

circuit court that KRS 413.245 is applicable here to bar the present case as

untimely filed. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s order

entered on February 25, 2021.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Randall C. Teague                          Zack N. Womack
Madisonville, Kentucky                     Henderson, Kentucky

                                         -4-