Lawyers Mutual Insurance of Kentucky
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Staff
    • Board of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Risk Mitigation
    • Professional Liability Policy
    • Court Bonds
    • FAQs
  • Applications
    • Quick Quote
    • Application
    • New Bar Admit
    • Apply by Postal Mail
  • Forms
    • Claims Reporting
    • Policy Changes
      • Adding an Attorney
      • Remove an Attorney
      • Firm Name Change
      • Firm Address Change
    • Make a Payment
    • Future Contact Request
    • Reporting a Bar Complaint
  • Media
    • Newsletter Archive
    • COVID-19
    • Disaster Response Information
  • Resources
    • Site Search
    • Subjects A–Z
    • Subjects by Year
    • Schedule an Ethics CLE
    • OnDemand CLE Courses
    • Practice Management
    • Financial Statements
  • Contact
    • …And Here’s the Top Ten! Ethics and Malpractice Avoidance Guide
    • Effective Supervision: How to Meet Your Ethical Duties and Support Your Team
    • Improving Lawyer Competence with a Trauma Informed Approach
    • It’s Time for Your Annual Check-up!
    • Oyez! Oyez! An Overview of the New Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure
    • Planning for the Inevitable Protecting Your Law Firm In A Crisis
    • The Lawyer-Client Relationship Continuum: Determining Duties Owed After Casual Conversations
Slide background

We fight for the fighters.

Civil Rule 60.02 Motion Does Not Toll the One-Year Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice Suits - KRS 413.245
Download 2004_newsletter_spring.pdf

The Risk Manager, Spring 2004

The question whether a CR 60.02 motion tolls the one-year professional malpractice statute of limitations was raised in Faris v. Stone, Ky., 103 S.W. 3d 1 (2003). The case concerns divorce litigation in which two years after divorce the wife concluded that her husband had committed fraud by undervaluing business assets. This resulted in her receiving $1,500 instead of $162,100 that a jury later decided was the appropriate amount.

The record showed that the wife discovered the malpractice on August 28, 1995 when she was advised by successor counsel that her prior lawyer had committed malpractice by failing to obtain a proper evaluation of the husband’s business. Less than one year later on June 14, 1996 the wife filed a CR 60.02 motion seeking relief on the basis of her ex-husband’s alleged fraud. Approximately seven months later the CR 60.02 motion was denied. On November 7, 1997, over two years and two months after discovering the negligence, the wife made a claim of malpractice against her former lawyer. The lawyer asserted a statute of limitations defense on the basis that it was uncontested that the malpractice had been discovered by the wife more than one year before making her malpractice claim.

A unanimous Supreme Court held:

"We begin with the observation that CR 60.02 is not an appellate vehicle. It is not a part of the normal progression of litigation, but is an extraordinary procedure whereby a collateral attack is made upon a judgment upon specific grounds set forth in the rule. As such, a CR 60.02 claim is not of the same character as an appeal of right or a motion for discretionary review. It is separate and distinct from the main case, and a party may not use it as a means to extend a statutory period. If it were otherwise, statutes of limitation would pass into nonexistence because CR 60.02 (d), (e), and (f) are without any outer limits with respect to time. As such, a party could always bring a CR 60.02 motion and thereby revitalize a time-barred claim.

Accordingly, we decline to adopt Ms. Faris’ argument that the date of her injury did not become fixed and nonspeculative until the denial of the CR 60.02 motion. Pursuant to KRS 413.245, the latter of the date of occurrence or the date of discovery of the negligence commences the one-year statute of limitations. The date of occurrence was the time when the underlying divorce decree became final. As Ms. Faris was not aware of the alleged malpractice at this time, the date of discovery governs commencement of the limitation period. Thus, the one-year period began when she learned that her case had been negligently practiced." (footnotes omitted)

The Faris decision is a mini-clinic on how KRS 413.245 applies to legal malpractice claims. The Court succinctly synthesizes the case law covering the key concepts of occurrence, discovery, and continuous representation dicta. It is a professional reading must. For more on this subject read The Kentucky Malpractice Statute of Limitations – The Kentucky Supreme Court Clears the Air available in the Bench & Bar section of our website.

 

Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky

10503 Timberwood Cir., Ste. 213
Louisville, Kentucky 40223

Phone: 502-568-6100
Fax: 502-568-6103

Who We Are
About Us
Staff
Board of Directors

What We Do
Risk Mitigation
Professional Liability Policy
Court Bonds
FAQs

Applications
Quick Quote
Application
New Bar Admit

Facebook
LinkedIn
Instagram
Twitter

Media
Newsletter Archive
COVID-19
Disaster Response Information

Forms
Bar Complaint
Claims Reporting
Make a Payment
Add an Attorney
Remove an Attorney
Firm Name Change
Firm Address Change

Resources
Subjects A-Z
Schedule an Ethics CLE
Practice Management

Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky

10503 Timberwood Cir., Ste. 213
Louisville, Kentucky 40223

Phone: 502-568-6100
Fax: 502-568-6103

Who We Are
About Us
Staff
Board of Directors

What We Do
Risk Mitigation
Professional Liability Policy
Court Bonds
FAQs

Applications
Quick Quote
Application
New Bar Admit

Applications
Quick Quote
Application
New Bar Admit

Forms
Bar Complaint
Claims Reporting
Make a Payment
Add an Attorney
Remove an Attorney
Firm Name Change
Firm Address Change

Resources
Subjects A-Z
Schedule an Ethics CLE
Practice Management

Social
Facebook
LinkedIn
Instagram
Twitter

Social
Facebook
LinkedIn
Instagram
Twitter

Disclaimer: The contents of this Web site are intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. It is not the intent of this Web site to establish an attorney’s standard of due care for a particular situation. Rather, it is our intent to advise our policyholders to act in a manner which may be well above the standard of due care in order to avoid claims having merit, as well as those without merit. In the event any statement on the Web site differs from a statement in an issued policy the policy will control.

  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Staff
    • Board of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Risk Mitigation
    • Professional Liability Policy
    • Court Bonds
    • FAQs
  • Applications
    • Quick Quote
    • Application
    • New Bar Admit
    • Apply by Postal Mail
  • Forms
    • Claims Reporting
    • Policy Changes
      • Adding an Attorney
      • Remove an Attorney
      • Firm Name Change
      • Firm Address Change
    • Make a Payment
    • Future Contact Request
    • Reporting a Bar Complaint
  • Media
    • Newsletter Archive
    • COVID-19
    • Disaster Response Information
  • Resources
    • Site Search
    • Subjects A–Z
    • Subjects by Year
    • Schedule an Ethics CLE
    • OnDemand CLE Courses
    • Practice Management
    • Financial Statements
  • Contact