Limiting Legal Malpractice Claims: Applying the Glenbrook Analysis
The statue of limitations for a legal malpractice action in Pennsylvania is two years from the date of the malpractice; however that time period may be extended under certain circumstances. In Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang, 839 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 2003), affirmed, 881 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 2005), the Pennsylvania Superior Court explored the viability of various ways to potentially extend that two year period.
Plaintiff in Glenbrook is a real estate partnership which purchased office space in a condominium development to be used as medical offices. The agreement of sale for the office space included language granting Plaintiff use (and alleged ownership) of 35 parking spaces. Nothing was placed in the deed regarding Plaintiff’s ownership of the aforesaid parking spaces.
About six years later, the condominium association took action to limit Plaintiff’s use of the aforesaid 35 parking spaces. Unsurprisingly, a dispute arose between Plaintiff and the condominium association regarding the ownership and use of the parking spaces, which eventually evolved into litigation. The litigation culminated in a ruling in favor of the condominium association. The ruling was based on the merger doctrine, which generally states that any guarantee to be granted in a real estate transaction must be stated in the deed to the subject property. As applied to the instant matter, Plaintiff was considered not to have any ownership rights over the parking spaces as they were not memorialized in the deed to the property.
When the initial real estate transaction took place, Plaintiff was represented by Defendant, a real estate law firm. Plaintiff believed that its loss in the litigation against the condominium association, and the resulting loss of the 35 parking spaces, was a direct result of the legal malpractice of Defendant in failing to take into consideration the merger doctrine, and by failing to include language regarding the parking spaces in the deed to the property at issue. About a year after the conclusion of the litigation against the condominium association, and about six years after the association first presented the issues regarding the deed, and its lack of language dealing with the parking spaces to Plaintiff, the company brought suit against Defendant law firm, claiming it committed legal malpractice.
Defendant ultimately filed a motion for summary judgement, claiming that Plaintiff brought suit far beyond the two year statute of limitations. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendant. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and the Supreme Court issued a per curiam order affirming the Superior Court’s ruling. It is the Superior Court’s opinion that is the subject of this article.
While the statue of limitation in a legal malpractice claim is two years, that period can be extended via the equitable discovery rule which sates that the two years is initiated not at the occurrence of the malpractice, but when it was, or should have been, discovered. The Court ruled that Plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, that there may have been legal malpractice six years before it initiated suit against Defendant (or four years longer than the two year statute allows) when the dispute with the condominium association first arose.
Plaintiff then argued that the Court should apply the “continuous representation rule” which states that the limitations period would not begin to run until plaintiff terminated Defendant’s services. The Court was unmoved by Plaintiff’s argument to extend the legal malpractice statute of limitations based on the continuous representation rule. The Court noted that the rule was not the law of Pennsylvania (although it is in other jurisdictions) and it is not the place of the Superior Court to adopt new rules without authority to do so.
Plaintiff next argued that the limitations period should be extended through estoppel, asserting that the “special relationship” between a lawyer and his client lulled Plaintiff into a false sense of security, through fraud, or deception, or concealment, to trust Defendant beyond when it would have been prudent to do so. This sort of argument has traction among physicians and patients and Plaintiff attempted here to apply it to attorneys and clients. The Court rejected this argument as well, as it found Defendant was completely candid with Plaintiff regarding the claims made by the condominium association, including providing Plaintiff with the first allegation of their own malpractice nearly six years prior to Plaintiff’s bringing suit.
Finally, Plaintiff argued that the question of precisely when it discovered the malpractice is a question of fact that should have been decided by a jury, not via a motion for summary judgement. The Court rejected this argument as well, ruling that the facts in this matter were abundantly clear as to when Plaintiff discovered the malpractice.
The statute of limitations is critical to be aware of when considering bringing suit. Although the Court made a variety of rulings, as described above, it is significant and useful in that it lays out some guidelines as to how to apply the various means to extend the statute of limitations and notably refuses to adopt and apply the continuous representation rule.
Originally published in Upon Further Review on September 24, 2015 and can be seen here.