Opinion
16-P-584
05-11-2017
Ashley S. SALVETTI v. Todd S. MILLS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Ashley S. Salvetti, appeals from the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Todd S. Mills. She contends that the motion judge erroneously concluded that the statute of limitations had run on her legal malpractice claim against Mills. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the relevant facts in the light most favorable to Salvetti. See Swasey v. Barron, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 127, 127-128 (1999). On December 1, 2003, Salvetti, then seventeen years old, was involved in a car accident. That month, her father retained Mills to represent her in a personal injury claim. At some point after December 5, 2005, Mills telephoned Salvetti's father and discontinued his representation.
After reaching the age of majority, Salvetti conferred with a second attorney, Roger Turgeon. Attorney Turgeon notified Salvetti by letter dated July 22, 2008, that Mills may not have filed Salvetti's lawsuit. Attorney Turgeon also sent Salvetti two contingency fee agreements dated July 22, 2008, one covering the personal injury claim, and a second covering the legal malpractice claim against Mills.
After Salvetti signed the fee agreements, Attorney Turgeon received Salvetti's file from Mills. Mills claimed to have withdrawn from the case by letter dated December 5, 2005; the letter informed Salvetti to hire substitute counsel immediately. Salvetti denied receiving the letter from Mills, a fact we take as true for purposes of this motion. In letters dated July 30, 2009, Attorney Turgeon informed Salvetti and her father that he would not represent her in a legal malpractice claim against Mills, as Salvetti failed to respond to his inquiries.
The copy of the letter produced by Mills was unsigned. Salvetti claims that the letter is back-dated and fraudulent.
Turgeon returned Salvetti's file to her on October 1, 2009. Before November of 2009, Salvetti and her father met with a third attorney, who told them that the statute of limitations on her personal injury claim had run.
Discussion. A plaintiff must file a legal malpractice lawsuit within three years after the cause of action accrues. See G. L. c. 260, § 4. A cause of action accrues when "the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he or she has been harmed by the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff need not know the extent of the injury or know that the defendant was negligent for the cause of action to accrue. Once a client or former client knows or reasonably should know that he or she has sustained appreciable harm as a result of the lawyer's conduct, the statute of limitations starts to run." Williams v. Ely, 423 Mass. 467, 473 (1996) (citations and footnote omitted).
Even under the most generous reading, Salvetti was put on notice of her legal malpractice claim against Mills in the summer of 2008, when she received and executed the contingent fee agreement covering the legal malpractice claim. Her May 13, 2013, complaint was, therefore, untimely by any measure favorable to her. See Swasey v. Barron, 46 Mass. App. Ct. at 130. The motion judge did not err in allowing summary judgment for Mills.
We deny Mills's request pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 25, as appearing in 376 Mass. 949 (1979).
--------
Judgment affirmed.