Court Opinion

ID: 9398103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 14:08:27.263647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.150451
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Kaltenbach v. Wasserman, 2023-Ohio-1778.]

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                               SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    WOOD COUNTY

Keith W. Kaltenbach                                  Court of Appeals No. WD-22-039

        Appellant                                    Trial Court No. 2020CV0475

v.

John C. Wasserman                                    DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellee                                     Decided: May 26, 2023

                                               *****

        Charles William Bair, for appellant.

        Jean Ann S. Sieler and Kayla L. Henderson, for appellee.

                                               *****

DUHART, J.

        {¶ 1} This is an appeal by appellant, Keith W. Kaltenbach (“Keith”), from the

May 13, 2022 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary
judgment to appellee, John C. Wasserman, upon finding that Keith failed to timely file

the legal malpractice action. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

       {¶ 2} Keith sets forth one assignment of error:

              The trial court erred in finding that the attorney-client relationship *

       * * ended [no later than] December 9, 2019, when Attorney Wasserman

       gave. [Keith] a sworn statement to be filed with the Lucas County Probate

       Court and when [Keith’s] wife requested a final bill from him.

                                    Background

       {¶ 3} The following facts are relevant to this appeal. This case stems from

conflicting financial claims by heirs in connection with the estate of Mabel Kaltenbach

(“Mabel”), Keith’s grandmother, who passed away on October 19, 2018.

       {¶ 4} Prior to Mabel’s death, Keith cared for her and her home, and in December

2014, Mabel named Keith as her agent under a power of attorney. Keith’s authority to

act under the power of attorney terminated upon Mabel’s death. On October 31, 2018,

following Mabel’s death, a quit-claim deed was recorded wherein Keith, using the power

of attorney, granted himself one-half interest in decedent’s real estate. Keith did so in

contravention of the power-of-attorney and fiduciary provisions in Mabel’s will. On

November 1, 2018, a survivorship deed was recorded, granting all of Mabel’s real estate

to her daughter.

2.
                                   Probate Court Actions

       {¶ 5} On January 7, 2019, an application to administer Mabel’s estate was filed in

Lucas County probate court.

       {¶ 6} On February 12, 2019, Robert Kaltenbach (“Robert”), Mabel’s son and

Keith’s father, filed suit in Lucas County probate court against, inter alia, Keith alleging

wrongdoing by Keith in connection to Mabel’s estate (“probate litigation”). Specifically,

Robert alleged that Keith engaged in undue influence over Mabel, breached his fiduciary

duties to Mabel, and unlawfully converted portions of her real property and monies to

himself (Keith).

       {¶ 7} On February 28, 2019, Keith met with attorney Wasserman to discuss

engaging him as legal counsel to defend him in the probate litigation. At the conclusion

of the meeting, Keith retained Wasserman and the firm to represent him concerning

probate-related matters, which included the probate litigation and the admission of

Mabel’s will and administration of her estate with Keith as executor. Keith executed a

legal representation fee agreement.

       {¶ 8} The record reflects that from the onset of the attorney-client relationship,

Keith repeatedly emphasized to Wasserman his concerns with the costs of legal

representation, and expressed a desire to keep the legal fees to a minimum. Based upon

Keith’s cost concerns, in conjunction with Wasserman’s professional evaluation of the

merits of the case, in or about early June 2019, Wasserman sought to explore resolving

3.
the probate litigation via mediation, which was more cost-effective. Keith agreed.

Wasserman advised Keith that mediation would entail pausing active litigation, including

discovery and the filing of potential counterclaims against Keith’s father, to avoid

additional fees, and active litigation would resume if mediation failed. Again, Keith

agreed.

       {¶ 9} Lastly, in order to minimize costs, Keith agreed to personally perform many

of the perfunctory mediation preparation tasks for Wasserman, such as assembling,

organizing, and furnishing to Wasserman all of Keith’s supporting documentation needed

by Wasserman to negotiate on Keith’s behalf at mediation.

       {¶ 10} Mediation was scheduled for August 15, 2019.

                                  Mediation Preparation

       {¶ 11} The record reflects that Wasserman experienced considerable difficulties

regarding Keith’s agreement to perform these preparatory tasks prior to mediation. The

record shows that despite having a few months in which to assemble, organize, and

deliver the supporting documentation to Wasserman, Keith failed to do so until the day

before the mediation. The materials which Keith did deliver to Wasserman lacked the

substantive details that Wasserman had repeatedly advised Keith were needed. Further

negatively impacting the strength of Wasserman’s position on behalf of Keith, the dates

on the documents which were furnished by Keith reflected that any claims premised upon

those documents would already be untimely for active litigation purposes.

4.
                                           Mediation

       {¶ 12} On August 15, 2019, the mediation was held at the Wood County Court of

Common Pleas. Keith’s father made an initial mediation settlement demand of Keith of

$90,000, along with the transfer of assorted personal property and vehicles. Ultimately,

following exhaustive negotiations, the probate litigation was voluntarily settled with

Keith consenting to pay his father $5,000, and to relinquish certain items of personal

property to his father. On that same day, Keith voluntarily executed a mediation

settlement agreement, memorializing the terms agreed upon between, inter alia, Keith and

his father, in order settle all of father’s claims in the probate litigation.

                                           Settlement

       {¶ 13} On November 2, 2019, in performance of the steps necessary to satisfy and

complete the terms of the mediation settlement agreement, the parties and their attorneys

met in a neutral, agreed-upon location, and exchanged the settlement payment and the

property items.

                               Dismissal of Probate Litigation

       {¶ 14} Thereafter, on November 13, 2019, a joint notice of dismissal of the

probate litigation was filed by the parties with the trial court, and on November 15, 2019,

the trial court dismissed and closed the probate litigation.

5.
                                        Mabel’s Estate

       {¶ 15} As noted above, an application to administer Mabel’s estate was filed in

Lucas County probate court on January 7, 2019. Although the record does not indicate

who did file the application, Keith did not file it.

       {¶ 16} On March 11, 2019, Keith filed, inter alia, Mabel’s will and an application

for authority to administer Mabel’s estate in Lucas County probate court. The estate

matter proceeded with Keith filing, inter alia, a Sworn Statement in Lieu of an Account

and Inventory on June 18, 2019.

       {¶ 17} After the August 2019 mediation and settlement, there were no assets in

Mabel’s estate. Wasserman prepared and finalized the Sworn Statement in Lieu of

Inventory, First and Final Account (“last statement”) on November 25, 2019.

Wasserman’s paralegal emailed the last statement to Keith on November 26, 2019. On

December 4, 2019, the paralegal sent the last statement to Keith with a letter, indicating

that Wasserman’s office had been trying to contact Keith, as the last statement had to

have Keith’s notarized signature and must be filed with the probate court by

December 12, 2019; the paralegal offered for Wasserman’s office to notarize Keith’s

signature and file the last statement with the probate court.

       {¶ 18} Keith personally filed the last statement with the probate court on

December 12, 2019. Mabel’s estate case was closed on December 13, 2019.

6.
                                 Invoice for Legal Services

       {¶ 19} On December 9, 2019, Keith’s wife emailed Wasserman, requesting a copy

of the bill from the very beginning of the case to the end.

                                 Legal Malpractice Action

       {¶ 20} On December 10, 2020, Keith filed a complaint against Wasserman for

legal malpractice, alleging that Wasserman failed “to raise as an effective defense the

counterclaim available to [Keith], [thus] he was seriously disadvantaged and required to

pay estate funds to his father without any corresponding reimbursement to the estate.”

       {¶ 21} In elaborating on the basis of his malpractice claim against Wasserman,

Keith testified at his deposition that “after I thought about it, I was just * * * why, why

did I have to give up [$5,000] when my aunt [a co-defendant] only had to give up $2,500

* * * I [gave] too much [at the mediation].”

       {¶ 22} On April 2, 2021, Wasserman’s law firm (“the firm”) filed an intervenor

complaint against Keith, setting forth, inter alia, a breach of contract claim.

                                  Motion for Summary Judgment

       {¶ 23} On February 25, 2022, Wasserman and the firm filed a motion for

summary judgment, in which Wasserman asserted, inter alia, that Keith’s legal

malpractice action was time-barred by the statute of limitations as the termination of the

attorney-client relationship occurred more than one year before Keith filed suit.

Wasserman argued he prepared the last statement on November 25, 2019, and his staff

7.
emailed it to Keith the next day for his signature. Wasserman noted that he testified at

his deposition that Keith picked up the last statement from the firm to file himself, as

“[h]e [Keith] stated that he wanted to file that, * * * that we were done on the resolution

with * * * his father and this had to be done and that wrapped it up.”

       {¶ 24} In addition, Wasserman submitted that Keith’s affirmative step to forgo

further legal services and finish the probation administration himself is indicative of the

termination of relationship. In support, Wasserman cited to Kalski v. Bartimole, 2020-

Ohio-4137, 157 N.E.3d 436, ¶ 38, 41 (8th Dist.):

              “Pro se filings after the rendering of a judgment are evidence that the

       attorney-client relationship has been terminated.” Triplett v. Benton, 10th

       Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-342, 2003-Ohio-5583, 2003 WL 22390065, ¶ 16

       [.]

              ***

              There is no allegation that [the attorney] performed any legal work

       for [the client] or provided [the client] any legal counsel at any time

       following the [grievance] letter, further evidencing a termination of the

       part[ies’] professional relationship. See Socha [v. Weiss, 8th Dist.

       Cuyahoga No. 105468], 2017-Ohio-7610, 97 N.E.3d 818, at ¶ 20 (the

       absence of counsel providing additional legal services beyond the

8.
       conclusion of a probate matter demonstrated termination of the attorney-

       client relationship).

       {¶ 25} Wasserman also contended that Keith’s wife sent an email to Wasserman,

on Keith’s behalf, on December 9, 2019, requesting a final copy of the bill for legal

services, which is further evidence of the client’s actions to terminate the attorney-client

relationship. Wasserman cited to Keith’s deposition testimony, where Keith was asked

“In your eyes you were getting the final bill from the beginning until the very end at that

point?” Keith replied “In December? * * * True.” Wasserman claimed Keith clearly

viewed the attorney-client relationship as concluded no later than December 9, 2019.

                       Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

       {¶ 26} On March 29, 2022, Keith filed an opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. Keith observed there was no dispute that his agreement with Wasserman

involved the defense of the probate litigation and the administration of Mabel’s will and

estate. Keith argued that the representation continued through and including the filing of

the last statement for Mabel’s estate, with Wasserman’s certification at the bottom, which

was not completed until December 12, 2019. Keith offered the probate court docket that

showed the last statement for Mabel’s estate was filed December 12, 2019, which

concluded the administration of the estate.

9.
       {¶ 27} Keith further argued that when he received his file from Wasserman’s

office, the file contained a date-stamp indicating the matter was closed on December 31,

2019. Keith maintained since his complaint against Wasserman was filed on

December 10, 2020, it was timely filed.

                               Summary Judgment Granted

       {¶ 28} On May 13, 2022, the trial court granted summary judgment to Wasserman

and dismissed Keith’s complaint, and granted summary judgment to the firm - on its

breach of contract claim - against Keith. The trial court made several findings.

       {¶ 29} First, “[t]he cognizable event that put [Keith] on notice, or should have put

him on notice, to investigate the facts and circumstances relevant to a possible legal

malpractice claim took place at the mediation held on August 15, 2019.”

       {¶ 30} Second, “[w]ork related to the probate litigation matter ended when [Keith]

transferred certain items of personal property and the sum of $5,000 to his father on

November 2, 2019. The parties signed a settlement and mutual release agreement and a

notice of dismissal was filed on November 13, 2019.”

       {¶ 31} Lastly, “[t]he attorney-client relationship terminated no later than

December 9, 2019, the date [Keith’s] wife requested and received the final bill * * * since

the cognizable event took place on August 15, 2019, and the attorney-client relationship

terminated no later than December 9, 2019, [Keith’s] legal malpractice claim began to

toll on the later of those dates, December 9, 2019.” Based on the totality of these

10.
findings, the trial court held, “[b]ecause [Keith] filed his complaint on December 10,

2020, his legal malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”

        {¶ 32} Keith appealed.

                                    Assignment of Error

        {¶ 33} In the sole assignment of error, Keith asserts that the trial court erred in its

summary judgment determination that the attorney-client relationship between the parties

ended no later than December 9, 2019, such that Keith’s December 10, 2020 legal

malpractice filing was time-barred by R.C. 2305.11(A).

        {¶ 34} Keith submits the termination of the attorney-client relationship is

determined by the latest date of Wasserman’s engagements for the two probate matters:

the probate litigation and Mabel’s estate. Keith maintains the probate litigation was

dismissed on November 13, 2019, but the matter of Mabel’s estate continued into

December 2019. Keith contends Wasserman prepared the last statement, which had to be

signed by Keith as executor of his grandmother’s estate, and Keith picked up the last

statement from Wasserman and took it to the probate court for filing on December 12,

2019.

        {¶ 35} Keith notes the probate court docket reveals that he was the fiduciary for

Mabel’s estate and Wasserman was the attorney for the estate, and no portion of the

docket for Mabel’s estate shows that Wasserman withdrew as the attorney for Keith and

the estate. Keith further observes the docket shows that the judgment entry approving the

11.
last statement prepared by Wasserman was filed in the probate court on December 12,

2019, and the case was closed on December 13, 2019.1

      {¶ 36} Keith also maintains that despite the trial court’s reliance on his wife

requesting a copy of the “final bill” from Wasserman, the issue of whether further work

was need on Mabel’s estate could not have been determined at the time the request was

made, since the last statement had not been filed. Keith asserts Wasserman, as the

attorney of record before the probate court, would have been called upon to respond until

December 13, 2019, when the case was closed.

                                  Standard of Review

      {¶ 37} It is well-established that appellate court review of disputed summary

judgment decisions is done on a de novo basis. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio

St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). In Lowe v. Local Union No. 14 U.A.W., 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L-19-1042, 2020-Ohio-703, 145 N.E.3d 363, ¶ 14, we held “[u]nder the de

novo standard, we undertake our own independent examination of the record and make

our own decision as to whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment.

Dupler v. Manfield Journal, 64 Ohio St.2d 116, 413 N.E.2d 1187 (1980).”

      {¶ 38} Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R.

1
  We note there is a reference in the record to emails and a telephone call between Keith
and Wasserman, in May 2020, regarding a key fob to a motorcycle. Keith did not raise
these exchanges in his arguments as a basis for the continuation of the attorney-client
relationship, therefore we will not consider them.

12.
56(C). A motion for summary judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and

written stipulations of fact,” show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

       {¶ 39} The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of

material fact exists. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to provide evidence showing that a

genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. at 293.

                                            Law

       {¶ 40} R.C. 2305.11(A) sets forth a one-year limitation period for bringing legal-

malpractice claims. In order to determine when that period commenced, the Ohio

Supreme Court has established a disjunctive test:

       Under R.C. 2305.11(A), an action for legal malpractice accrues and the

       statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event

       whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was

       related to his attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a

       need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the

       attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking

       terminates, whichever occurs later. Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold,

       43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398 (1989), syllabus.

13.
       {¶ 41} Under Zimmie’s termination rule, courts look for an act or acts by either the

attorney or the client which signals the severing of their relationship. Smith v. Conley,

109 Ohio St.3d 141, 2006-Ohio-2035, 846 N.E.2d 509, ¶ 12. The “determination of when

the attorney-client relationship for a particular transaction terminates is generally a

question of fact * * * [however,] where the evidence is clear and unambiguous, so that

reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion from it, the matter may be decided as a

matter of law.” Trombley v. Calamunci, Joelson, Manore, Farah & Silvers, L.L.P., 6th

Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1138, 2005-Ohio-2105, ¶ 43. Conduct which a court looks to

includes an attorney not providing any additional legal services to the client. Id. at ¶ 46.

See also Woodrow v. Heintschel, 194 Ohio App.3d 391, 2011-Ohio-1840, 956 N.E.2d

855, ¶ 48 (6th Dist.).

                                          Analysis

                                      Cognizable Event

       {¶ 42} Pursuant to Zimmie, we first look at the cognizable event portion of the

analysis to determine when Keith should have discovered, and was thereby been put on

notice of, alleged legal malpractice by Wasserman.

       {¶ 43} Upon review, the crux of Keith’s legal malpractice claim was that

Wasserman negotiated mediation settlement terms with respect to the probate litigation

which were not sufficiently favorable to Keith.

14.
       {¶ 44} The record reveals that Keith and Wasserman jointly selected the mediation

route as the best, mutually acceptable course of action to attempt to resolve the probate

litigation, based upon Keith’s legal fee minimization objective. The mediation of the

probate litigation was held on August 15, 2019, and the probate litigation was settled that

same day.

       {¶ 45} We find that Keith should have first discovered, and been on notice of, the

potential need to pursue claims against Wasserman in connection to the agreed upon

terms of the mediation settlement agreement on August 15, 2019. The record shows this

was the day that Keith actively participated in the mediation settlement negotiations,

agreed to, and signed off on, the now disputed mediation settlement terms. Accordingly,

we find that the Zimmie cognizable event occurred on August 15, 2019.

                       Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship

       {¶ 46} Since the cognizable event occurred more than one year before Keith filed

his legal malpractice action, we must next determine whether the attorney-client

relationship between Keith and Wasserman extended past that point as, pursuant to

Zimmie, the latter of the two events begins the running of the one-year statute of

limitations.

       {¶ 47} The record reflects that Keith’s legal malpractice action against Wasserman

was premised upon Wasserman’s legal representation of Keith in the probate litigation

15.
brought against Keith by his father, and more specifically, the settlement negotiated by

Wasserman, on Keith’s behalf, in the mediation action.

       {¶ 48} The record shows that following the mediation and the settlement reached

on August 15, 2019, which was memorialized in a written mediation settlement

agreement, Keith and his father met in person, with counsel, on November 2, 2019, and

completed the remaining actions required to finalize the terms of the settlement. On

November 13, 2019, a notice of dismissal of the probate litigation was filed with the

probate court. On November 15, 2019, the probate litigation was dismissed and closed

by the probate court.

       {¶ 49} The record further shows the firm’s invoice, dated “12/20/2019,” provides

the last date that legal services were rendered by Wasserman for “KEITH W.

KALTENBACH” concerning “Probate related matters” was “11/26/2019.” More

specifically, the invoice reflects that Wasserman prepared the last statement for Mabel’s

estate on November 25, 2019, Wasserman’s paralegal emailed the last statement to Keith

on November 26, 2019, and sent the last statement to Keith, with a letter dated

December 4, 2019. Then, on December 9, 2019, Keith’s wife requested and received

Wasserman’s final invoice. Keith personally filed the last statement with the probate

court on December 12, 2019.

       {¶ 50} Upon review, we find that Wasserman presented evidence, in support of the

motion for summary judgment, that the attorney-client relationship between himself and

16.
Keith terminated, at the latest, on December 9, 2019, when the final invoice for legal

services was requested and provided to Keith’s wife. Wasserman also presented

evidence that the last time he or his staff conducted any probate-related matter was when

his paralegal wrote Keith a letter, on December 4, 2019, informing him about the last

statement which had to be signed and filed with the probate court. Wasserman offered

Keith’s actions of filing the last statement with the probate court himself, and not having

Wasserman or his staff file the last statement, as evidence that the attorney-client

relationship had ended. In addition, Wasserman presented Keith’s deposition testimony

as evidence that the attorney-client relationship ended in early December 2019, as Keith

clarified and agreed that in December 2019, he received the final bill from Wasserman

“from the beginning until the very end.”

        {¶ 51} We therefore conclude Wasserman offered proof of affirmative acts by

Keith which indicated and constituted the end of the attorney-client relationship. As

such, we conclude Wasserman met his burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of

material fact existed, and the attorney-client relationship ended no later than December 9,

2019.

        {¶ 52} Concerning Keith’s reciprocal burden to provide evidence showing that a

genuine issue of material fact existed, Keith offered proof that the administration of

Mabel’s estate concluded December 12, 2019, and his file from Wasserman’s office

contained a date-stamp of December 31, 2019, indicating the matter was closed.

17.
       {¶ 53} Upon review, we find evidence that Keith’s grandmother’s estate

concluded after Keith himself filed the final statement with the probate court, and the

date-stamp on Keith’s file that it was closed on December 31, 2019, are not proof of legal

services or activities involving Wasserman which could be the basis for an inference that

the attorney-client relationship continued after December 9, 2019. Hence, Keith failed to

carry his burden of establishing a triable issue of fact that the attorney-client relationship

extended beyond December 9, 2019.

       {¶ 54} We therefore conclude the evidence concerning the conduct of Keith and

Wasserman is clear and unambiguous, so that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion, and that is the attorney-client relationship terminated by December 9, 2019,

at the latest. Consequently, we find for the purposes of the Zimmie test, the attorney-

client relationship ended by December 9, 2019.

       {¶ 55} In light of the foregoing, we find that Keith’s December 10, 2020 legal

malpractice complaint against Wasserman was not timely filed, pursuant to R.C.

2305.11(A). As such, we find the trial court properly granted summary judgment to

Wasserman. Accordingly, we find Keith’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.

       {¶ 56} The May 13, 2022 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed. Keith is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                          Judgment affirmed.

18.
                                                                     Keith W. Kaltenbach
                                                                    v. John C. Wasserman
                                                                              WD-22-039

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                           ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.
                                               ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                   JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                               ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE

       This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
  Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
       version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

19.