« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Indiana high court considers capping punitive damage" »

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Byram E. Dickes, Ruth E. Logar, Christopher S. Spiritoso, Gregory Spiritoso, Lindsey E. Dickes, Dickes Development Co., LLC, et al. v. Ronald D. Felger, and Shambaugh, Kast, Beck & Williams, LLP, an 8-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:

Byram Dickes, Ruth Logar, Christopher Spiritoso, Gregory Spiritoso, Lindsey Dickes, Dickes Development Co., LLC, and Dickes Real Estate, LLC, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ronald Felger and Shambuaugh, Kast, Beck & Williams, LLP (collectively, “Attorneys”). We affirm.

Plaintiffs raise three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly determined that their attorney malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations. * * *

We agree that Plaintiffs here were aware of or could have discovered Attorneys’ alleged malpractice by the summer of 2006. Plaintiffs were aware that, despite the 1995 negotiations with the railroad and the deed, they in fact did not own the abandoned railroad right-of-way. Further, they were clearly aware that they had been damaged, as the right-of-way was interfering with their proposed development of the property. Although Plaintiffs were not able to definitively point to the wrong legal description on the deed as Attorneys’ exact error until the summer of 2007, they were aware of the issues with Attorneys’ work long before that time.

Plaintiffs also argue that the statute of limitations does not bar their claim because of Attorneys’ fraudulent concealment. * * * Even if Attorneys’ fraudulently concealed their error, Plaintiffs were still aware of the issues by the summer of 2006, and their March 2009 complaint was untimely. Consequently, we conclude that Plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Attorneys because Plaintiffs’ attorney malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Kerry Wagoner and Wagoner Trucking, Inc. v. Rugged Enterprises, LLC (NFP)

Roseanne Kwak v. Kimberly Overmyer and Marshall-Starke Development Center, Inc., West Bend Mutual Ins. Company (NFP)

Melissa L. Freyberger v. Duane L. Freyberger (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Scott J. Lunsford v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Uriah S. Swelfer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Decarlos Connell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joseph Majors v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Daniel A. Sage v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tyler P. Hogue v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jaconiah Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 13, 2012 12:50 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions