Opinion
16-P-749
03-31-2017
Peter FAGONE v. Nicholas G. KALTSAS & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Peter Fagone, unhappy with the handling of his mother's financial affairs shortly before her death in 2002, and with the handling of her estate thereafter, brought malpractice and related claims against three attorneys in Superior Court in 2015. The defendants were Francis J. Russell, the mother's former guardian ad litem; Edward D. Simsarian, the former court-appointed administrator of the mother's estate; and Nicholas G. Kaltsas, Fagone's former attorney. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, and Fagone now appeals. We affirm.
Russell was appointed by the Probate Court to serve as the mother's guardian ad litem and to investigate and report on certain of her financial matters. The complaint alleges that Russell filed his report in 2001, and a letter attached to the complaint asserts that Russell filed a supplemental report in 2002. The complaint alleges no further actions by Russell.
Simsarian, according to the letter accompanying the complaint, filed his final account as administrator with the Probate Court in 2008, and the account was allowed and a resulting judgment entered that same year. Neither the complaint nor any other document submitted by Fagone alleges any action by Simsarian after 2008.
Kaltsas, according to the complaint, served as Fagone's attorney in 2008. Kaltsas acknowledged to the Superior Court that he had represented Fagone in the Probate Court matter until February, 2008, and that he continued to represent Fagone in related matters until March, 2009. Neither the complaint nor any other document submitted by Fagone alleges any action by Kaltsas after 2009.
All of Fagone's claims were subject to a three-year limitations period. See G. L. c. 260, § 4 (actions for malpractice, error or mistake against attorneys). See also G. L. c. 260, § 2A (actions of tort, except as otherwise provided). Fagone's claims against Russell, Simsarian, and Kaltsas must have accrued, if at all, no later than 2002, 2008, and March, 2009, respectively, when each of the three defendants' involvement in the underlying matters ended. Fagone did not file the present action until November, 2015, at least three years too late.
Fagone's brief fails to inform the court and the defendants of the legal basis of his appeal, and it fails to identify purported error, or support such argument as he makes, through citations to relevant authority or the parts of the record on which he relies. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Middleborough Gas & Elec. Dept . v. Middleborough , 48 Mass. App. Ct. 427, 434 (2000). Fagone's self-represented status does not excuse his lapse. See International Fid. Ins. Co . v. Wilson , 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). Nonetheless, we have independently reviewed the record before us and discern no error in the dismissal of Fagone's claims as time-barred.
The judgments of dismissal, as to Simsarian and Kaltsas are affirmed. The judgment of dismissal as to Russell shall be modified to include his name; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, all of which were allowed, but the judgment of dismissal as to Russell omitted his name, apparently inadvertently.
--------
So ordered .
Affirmed in part; affirmed as modified in part.