 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Law Office of Melbourne Mills3/21/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AFFIRMING
This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant's legal malpractice action for being filed outside the statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim. Although we adjudge that appellant's action was filed within the one-year statute of limitations, we nevertheless agree that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Hence, we affirm the dismissal of the claim under CR 12.02.
Appellant, Vernon Mills ("Vernon"), was injured in a car accident in Lexington on November 25, 1994. On November 2, 1995, Vernon filed a pro se personal injury action seeking damages for the injuries he received in the accident. After some discovery, Vernon retained the law offices of Melbourne Mills, appellees herein, to represent him in the action. After an unsuccessful settlement conference in 1998, the case proceeded to a jury trial on February 1, 1999. The jury rendered a verdict in Vernon's favor and awarded him $20,000 for pain and suffering. The final judgment on the verdict was entered on June 23, 1999, and Vernon signed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment on September 1, 1999.
Although he obtained a favorable result, Vernon felt he was entitled to more damages than were awarded and, thus, filed a post trial pro se motion seeking more damages/costs. On August 12, 1999, Vernon's counsel also filed a motion for costs on behalf of Vernon. On March 20, 2000, the court entered its order granting the attorney's motion for costs, but denying Vernon's pro se motion for more damages/costs. Vernon thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of his motion, which was denied by the court on April 14, 2000.
On March 20, 2001, Vernon filed a pro se action in the Fayette Circuit Court against the Law Office of Melbourne Mills and two attorneys with the law firm, David Stuart and Michael Casey. We shall discuss the complaint in further detail below. The complaint was essentially a legal malpractice action claiming, among other things, that the appellees were grossly negligent in their representation of Vernon. Following a motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the action on April 26, 2001, for being filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations and for failure to state a valid claim of legal negligence. After a subsequent order denying Vernon's motion to set aside the dismissal, Vernon now appeals pro se.
From the outset, we must note that appellant's brief is in large part unintelligible, as was his complaint. However, giving the pro se litigant the benefit of the doubt, we will endeavor to address his arguments.
First, appellant appears to argue that his action was filed within the statute of limitations, citing Alagia, Day, Trautwein & Smith v. Broadbent, Ky., 882 S.W.2d 121 (1994). We agree.
It appears that both parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is one year under KRS 413.245 for legal malpractice claims. Appellees argue that the statute of limitations began to run when the satisfaction of judgment was entered on September 8, 1999, claiming that date constituted final resolution of the underlying claim. See Michels v. Sklavos, Ky., 869 S.W.2d 728 (1994). True, appellant did not appeal the final judgment as in Hibbard v. Taylor, Ky., 837 S.W.2d 500 (1992). However, appellant did file a post-trial motion seeking additional damages and costs, and his counsel simultaneously filed a post-trial motion seeking costs. Regardless of the merits of appellant's post-trial motion, damages pursuant to a legal malpractice claim would not have been fixed until that motion was ruled upon, since the amount of damages he received (or did not receive) in th
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|