Rozen v. Wolff Ardis, P.C.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. W2019-00396-COA-R3-CV,W2019-00396-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | LINDA L. ROZEN ET AL. v. WOLFF ARDIS, P.C. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
Appellants filed a legal malpractice action against their former law firm after two civil judgments were not renewed after a ten-year period. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the appellants' claim was filed beyond the statute of limitations. The trial court also found that no attorney-client relationship existed to impose a duty on the law firm to renew the civil judgments before they expired. We find no reversible error in the trial court's ruling regarding the statute of limitations. As such, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
R. Sadler Bailey and J. Vance Montgomery, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Linda L. Rozen, and Doron Rozen.
Russell E. Reviere and Dale Conder, Jr., Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Wolff Ardis, P. C.
OPINIONThis case involves a claim of legal malpractice following the failure to renew two civil judgments ten years after they were first issued. Appellants Doron Rozen and Linda L. Rozen ("the Rozens") hired a law firm, Appellee Wolff Ardis, P.C. ("Wolff Ardis"), after they discovered that an employee, Jessica Trotter-Lawson ("Ms. Trotter"), and her then-boyfriend, Andrew Burton ("Mr. Sheriff")1, had embezzled hundreds of thousandsof dollars from the Rozens' jewelry business in Memphis. The Rozens signed an engagement agreement with Wolff Ardis on January 8, 2003. The agreement stated that Wolff Ardis would represent the Rozens and their business, Town & Country Jewelers, Inc., "in the investigation, pursuit, and if appropriate, prosecution of any claim and/or lawsuit arising out of the activities of [Ms. Trotter] and/or [Mr. Sheriff]."
The Rozens sought civil judgments against Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff. The Shelby County Chancery Court issued a $493,685.81 judgment against Ms. Trotter on April 23, 2003, and a $519,357.47 judgment against Mr. Sheriff on August 11, 2003. When each civil judgment was issued, the Rozens were represented by Sharon Petty ("Ms. Petty"), who then worked as an attorney at Wolff Ardis. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110(a)(2), civil judgments are effective for ten years; judgments may, however, be renewed by the filing of a timely petition. Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff separately pleaded guilty to two counts of theft over $60,000 on January 13, 2004, and were each sentenced to a maximum of eight years in prison. Because Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff had no demonstrable assets and would be incarcerated for some time, Wolff Ardis encouraged the Rozens to wait to collect on the judgments until both people had collectable income or assets. The Rozens were willing to wait and pursue their judgments against Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff as long as necessary. Both Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff were eventually released on probation.
Wolff Ardis represented the Rozens again in 2006 to ensure that the Rozens' judgment against Mr. Sheriff was not discharged after he was released from prison and filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court entered an order on May 8, 2008, that declared that the Rozens' judgment could not be discharged. On May 20, 2008, the Rozens received a letter from Wolff Ardis stating that "this matter is completed" and requesting that the Rozens pay for the legal services performed for them.
In the years after obtaining the judgments and the conclusion of bankruptcy matter, Mr. Rozen continued to contact Wolff Ardis about renewing the judgments before they expired.2 Typically, Mr. Rozen would discuss the judgments with Wolff Ardis staff, including paralegal Cindy Tupis ("Ms. Tupis") and legal assistant Cynthia Dayne ("Ms. Dayne").3 After one such conversation, Ms. Dayne sent an email to Mr. Rozen on June 29, 2011, stating in part:
Calendar reminders were directed to Ms. Dayne and Ms. Petty about renewing the Rozens' judgments. Unbeknownst to Ms. Dayne at the time, those reminders were never received due to technical issues. Neither Ms. Dayne nor Ms. Petty worked for Wolff Ardis when the present lawsuit was filed. At trial, the parties stipulated that Ms. Petty would testify that she never received the calendar invite. Mr. Rozen continued to contact Wolff Ardis regarding the judgments, including in 2012 after Ms. Trotter was accused of stealing from a church in Johnson City.4
The 2013 renewal dates on both judgments passed without intervention from either the Rozens or Wolff Ardis. Specifically, Wolff Ardis did not work to renew the judgments and did not issue a bill to the Rozens during that time. The Rozens contacted Wolff Ardis again about the judgments in June 2016, when Mr. Rozen asked the law firm to send him case files and complete a background check on Mr. Sheriff. At that time, Mr. Rozen indicated his belief that the judgments had been renewed. While conducting the background check, Ms. Tupis learned the judgments against Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff were never renewed and arguably invalid. Ms. Tupis told her supervisor, Patrick M. Ardis ("Mr. Ardis"), about the expired judgments. Mr. Ardis told Ms. Tupis that they should try to help the Rozens if they could. Without approval from the Rozens, Wolff Ardis filed Motions and Requests for Scire Facias to Revive Judgments against Ms. Trotter and Mr. Sheriff on June 20, 2016. Ms. Tupis completed the background check and emailed Mr. Rozen about the results on June 21, 2016. Ms. Tupis and Mr. Ardis unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Rozens personally and alert them of the judgments. Ms. Tupis eventually emailed Mr. Rozen on July 28, 2016 to inform him of the expired judgments and the motions that had been filed to revive them. After a hearing on August 15, 2016, the Motions and Requests for Scire Facias to Revive Judgments were denied by the Shelby County Chancery Court. Mr. Ardis sent a letter to the Rozens on August 17, 2016 informing them of the expired judgments, the failed efforts to revive them, and the law firm's plans to appeal the rulings at its own expense.5
The Rozens, along with Town & Country Jewelers, Inc., filed the present legal malpractice action against Wolff Ardis in Shelby County Circuit Court ("the trial court") on September 15, 2016.6 Wolff Ardis answered the complaint with multiple affirmative defenses on November 1, 2016, including expiration of the legal malpractice statute of limitations. Wolff Ardis moved for summary judgment on April 27, 2017, and the Rozens separately moved for summary judgment on May 30, 2017. The trial court was also asked whether Wolff Ardis could present evidence about the collectability of the judgments as part of its defense. The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment and additionally allowed Wolff Ardis to present evidence at trial regarding collectability. The Rozens moved for an interlocutory appeal on the collectability issue on November 22, 2017. The trial court granted the motion for an interlocutory appeal, but the Rozens' request was denied on January 8, 2018.
A bench trial was held on November 13 and November 19, 2018. At trial, the Rozens asserted that Wolff Ardis maintained an attorney-client relationship with them after the judgments were issued and that the law firm was liable for failing to renew those judgments. Further, the Rozens contended that they only learned of the malpractice when Mr. Ardis sent them a letter informing them of the failure to renew the judgments in August 2016. However, Wolff Ardis argued that no attorney-client relationship existed to require the law firm to renew the judgments and that it never agreed to renew them. Further, Wolff Ardis argued that the judgments were not collectible. Finally, Wolff Ardis contended that the Rozens' claim was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations, as the Rozens should have discovered any potential malpractice more than a year before they filed their lawsuit.
At trial, Mr. Rozen testified that he believed that Wolff Ardis committed to renewing the judgments when Ms. Dayne sent an email to that effect in June 2011. Further, Mr. Rozen denied that he saw a 2008 letter from Wolff Ardis stating that its representation in the Sheriff bankruptcy matter had concluded. Mr. Rozen also testified that he did not consistently receive regular, monthly statements from Wolff Ardis after they worked on his and his wife's behalf. He considered the law firm to be disorganized, which is why he continued to remind staff at Wolff Ardis about the judgments. He further believed that he and his wife were not always charged when the firm performed legal services for them. However, Mr. Rozen said in his deposition that he did not expect Wolff Ardis to renew the judgments at no charge.
In response, Mr. Ardis testified at trial that he had two conversations with Mr. Rozen about not renewing the judgments after they were issued in 2003. In 2004, Mr. Ardis said he told Mr. Rozen that Wolff Ardis would not renew the judgments during aheated conversation about unpaid bills. Mr. Rozen denied that this conversation ever occurred. During deposition testimony admitted as substantive evidence at trial, Ms. Tupis recalled the heated conversation but did not know its contents. Mr. Ardis also...
To continue reading
Request your trial