Funnell v. Jones
737 P.2d 105 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The two-year statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim begins to run when the negligent act occurs or when the plaintiff knows or should have known of the act, and it is not tolled by fraudulent concealment if the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the cause of action.
Facts:
- On or about August 8, 1969, attorney James E. Work allegedly committed legal malpractice while representing Roberta Ann Funnell.
- As early as June 1971, Roberta Ann Funnell was aware of and actively complaining about Work's alleged malpractice.
- Following 1971, Funnell consulted several other attorneys regarding a potential lawsuit against Work, but none of them initiated such a lawsuit.
- In a separate matter on June 28, 1978, Funnell's sons, Donald Funnell and David Funnell, executed a settlement agreement with James and Harriet Funnell to resolve other ongoing litigation.
- The settlement agreement text stated that the sons had been given full access to all relevant records and were satisfied with their accuracy.
- Years later, Funnell filed lawsuits against the attorneys she had consulted after Work, alleging they were negligent for failing to sue Work.
- Funnell also initiated a lawsuit on behalf of her deceased son David's estate, alleging the 1978 settlement was procured through fraud and coercion.
Procedural Posture:
- Roberta Ann Funnell and others filed three separate lawsuits in the District Court of Oklahoma County: two for legal malpractice against several attorneys and one for fraud related to a settlement agreement.
- The trial court consolidated the three actions.
- The defendants in all three cases filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
- The court ruled that the malpractice claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the fraud claim failed because the settlement agreement was valid.
- Roberta Ann Funnell and Donald Funnell (Appellants) appealed the trial court's grants of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a legal malpractice claim, filed nearly ten years after the plaintiff became aware of the alleged negligence, barred by the two-year statute of limitations despite allegations of fraudulent concealment by subsequent attorneys?
Opinions:
Majority - Doolin, J.
No. A legal malpractice claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations when the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the alleged negligence for nearly a decade before filing suit, and such knowledge defeats any claim that the statute should be tolled for fraudulent concealment. Legal malpractice is an action in tort governed by a two-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when the negligent act occurs or when the plaintiff should have known of it. To toll the statute for fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must show they did not know the facts and exercised reasonable diligence to discover them. Here, Roberta Ann Funnell had actual knowledge of the alleged malpractice in 1971, which negates any claim of concealment. Her theory of 'tacking' the negligence of subsequent attorneys to create a continuous tort is rejected; since the original claim against Work was time-barred, subsequent attorneys cannot be held liable for malpractice for not filing an invalid lawsuit. Regarding the separate fraud claim, a written settlement will be upheld unless fraud is established by clear and convincing evidence, which Funnell failed to provide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the statute of limitations in professional malpractice cases, placing a significant burden of diligence on the plaintiff. It clarifies that a client's actual awareness of potential malpractice triggers the limitations period, and this cannot be circumvented by arguing that subsequent professionals conspired to conceal the original error. The court's refusal to adopt a 'tacking' theory of negligence prevents the indefinite extension of liability and protects attorneys from defending against stale claims. The ruling also underscores the high evidentiary standard required to vitiate a formal settlement agreement, promoting the legal principles of finality and repose.
