Aykan v. Goldzweig
| Decision Date | 11 October 1989 |
| Citation | 238 N.J.Super. 389,569 A.2d 905 |
| Parties | Irmgard AYKAN, Plaintiff, v. Arthur N. GOLDZWEIG, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Andrew V. Clark, for plaintiff (Seaman, Clark, Addy & Clark, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
Joseph K. Cooney, for defendant (Widman & Cooney, Ocean Township, attorneys).
This matter came before the Court on September 14, 1989 for a hearing pursuant to Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 300 A.2d 563 (1973). It is undisputed that the complaint in this legal malpractice action was filed on August 2, 1988, and that the relevant Statute of Limitations under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 is six years. This issue then is the date from which the Statute of Limitations should be measured. If that date is before August 2, 1982, then the complaint should be dismissed; if it is on or after that date, the complaint may stand.
Plaintiff alleges, as her cause of action, two alleged instances of malpractice. Plaintiff had retained defendant-attorney to represent her in a matrimonial action. She claims that he used the wrong effective date for equitable distribution in the property settlement agreement and that he failed to file a separate tort action for the batteries that served as the basis for the cruelty count in the divorce complaint.
The property settlement agreement in question was executed on November 6, 1981. It used April 26, 1980, the date the parties separated, as the effective date of equitable distribution. Approximately two weeks after the Agreement was signed, plaintiff attended a seminar on divorce law at Brookdale Community College. At this seminar, she apparently learned that other effective dates could have been used for the equitable distribution, including the filing date of the divorce complaint. She testified that she went back to her attorney, the defendant, after this seminar, and told him that she would benefit from a later effective date. She alleges he told her not to worry.
In or about May 1982 plaintiff's husband filed a Complaint for Divorce. On June 9, 1982 defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim on behalf of plaintiff. The counterclaim alleged a cause of action for extreme cruelty which included batteries. No separate tort claim was filed for these, however. The Statute of Limitations for this would have expired on April 26, 1982, two years after the separation, which was when the alleged batteries ceased.
On August 13, 1982 plaintiff met with James Yudes, Esq. and retained him to represent her in place of defendant. He suggested to her the possibility that defendant may have committed malpractice in choosing the date of separation as the effective date for equitable distribution and in not filing a tort claim for battery.
Plaintiff now alleges that the six year Statute of Limitations did not begin to run until August 13, 1982, as that was the date of "discovery" pursuant to Lopez v. Swyer, supra. Defendant argues that "discovery" occurred in November 1981 when plaintiff attended the seminar at Brookdale Community College and learned of a possible error in setting the effective date of equitable distribution. In this he is supported by Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Company, 76 N.J. 284, 291, 386 A.2d 1310 (1978) which holds that the discovery principle modifies the conventional limitations rule only to the extent of postponing accrual of the cause of action until plaintiff learns, or reasonably should learn, the existence of that state of facts which may equate in law with a cause of action. It expressly holds that accrual will not further be delayed until plaintiff learns from a lawyer the legal effect of those facts.
This court finds that reasoning to be controlling here, insofar as the application of the discovery principle is concerned. Plaintiff was aware of all facts relevant to the effective date of equitable distribution in November 1981. This issue cannot be resolved on the basis of who the plaintiff found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giovine v. Giovine
...property to be subject to continual flooding due to negligent construction of an adjoining building); Aykan v. Goldzweig, 238 N.J.Super. 389, 392, 569 A.2d 905 (Law Div.1989) (continuous negligent representation by an attorney is a continuous tort which tolls the statute of limitations unti......
-
Grunwald v. Bronkesh
...the case to enable the trial court to apply the discovery rule in conformance with those guidelines. Ibid. In Aykan v. Goldzweig, 238 N.J.Super. 389, 569 A.2d 905 (1989), the Law Division again applied the discovery rule in a legal-malpractice suit. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant-atto......
-
Grunwald v. Bronkesh
...A.2d 781 (Law Div.1974). See also, Mant v. Gillespie, 189 N.J.Super. 368, 372, 460 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1983); Aykan v. Goldzweig, 238 N.J.Super. 389, 390, 569 A.2d 905 (Law Div.1989). Statutes of limitations are designed to act as measures of repose, prompting diligent pursuit of claims and p......
-
Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla
...until he or she learns the legal effect of those facts." Id. 131 N.J. at 500, 621 A.2d 459. See also Aykan v. Goldzweig, 238 N.J.Super. 389, 392, 569 A.2d 905 (Law Div.1989) (in attorney malpractice suit, cause of action was deemed to have accrued when plaintiff became aware at college semi......