Conway v. Huff
| Decision Date | 14 December 1982 |
| Citation | 644 S.W.2d 333 |
| Parties | James W. CONWAY, Movant, v. Ruby HUFF, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
Harold K. Huddleston, Huddleston & Van Zant, P.S.C., Elizabethtown, for movant.
Rebecca Swope Kimball, Philip C. Kimball, Lawrence, Chambers & Marshall, Louisville, for respondent.
Respondent, Ruby Huff, brought a legal malpractice action against the movant, James W. Conway, an attorney, alleging that Conway had negligently represented her in a dissolution of marriage action. The Bullitt Circuit Court sustained Conway's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed and we granted discretionary review.
The marriage was dissolved by a judgment of the Bullitt Circuit Court on December 27, 1979. Dissatisfied with her award under this judgment, she consulted another attorney in January, 1980. She testified in this action that she was told on her first consultation with him that she had been poorly or inadequately represented by Mr. Conway in the dissolution proceeding. The attorney that she consulted, Mr. Richard Porter, testified that his first meeting with Huff was on January 18, 1980. According to Huff's testimony, she was not told by Porter until six weeks later that she could bring an action against Conway for legal malpractice. However, she also testified that Porter may have told her that he thought she had a good malpractice case against Conway during the first meeting with Porter. Huff filed her legal malpractice case against Conway on January 22, 1981.
KRS 413.245 provides that actions for professional malpractice be brought within one year from the date of occurrence or from the date that the cause of action was, or reasonably should have been, discovered by the party so injured. The question to be resolved is when the statute of limitations started to run. Conway urges us that it began to run on January 18, 1980, the date that Huff was told that she had been poorly or inadequately represented. Huff urges that the statute did not start to run until approximately six weeks after January 18, 1980, the time that she was told by Porter that she had a legal malpractice action against Conway. For purposes of summary judgment we shall disregard her testimony that she may have been told this on January 18, 1980, during her first meeting with Porter.
We must now decide if knowledge that one has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutierrez v. Mofid
...§§ 911.4, subd. (b); 946.6, subd. (c).)4 Authorities from other jurisdictions, though sparse, support our conclusion. In Conway v. Huff (1982) 644 S.W.2d 333, the Kentucky Supreme Court confirmed that the malpractice limitations period begins upon discovery of the wrong, not of the right to......
-
Nicely v. McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, s. 1
...v. Preston Carroll Co., Inc., 27 F.3d 232, 235 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Gill v. Warren, 751 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.Ct.App.1988), and Conway v. Huff, 644 S.W.2d 333 (Ky.1982)). It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to anticipate the statute of limitations defense and provide sufficient facts to ove......
-
McKinney v. Fairchild Intern., Inc.
...of the injury, or from the date it should, in light of ordinary care and diligence, have been discovered' "). See Conway v. Huff, 644 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Ky.1982) ("Does the statute start to run when the surgery patient discovers the sponge or when an attorney tells the patient that legal acti......
-
Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
...date plaintiffs discovered that they had a cause of action. This argument was rebutted by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Conway v. Huff, 644 S.W.2d 333 (Ky.1983). In Conway, the court held that the date with which the statute begins to run "obviously ... must be with the discovery that a ......