S-17-0889, Dr. Robert F. Colwell, DDS and Dr. Robert F. Colwell Jr., DDS, PC, a Nebraska Professional Corporation [appellants] v. Sean Mullen, J.D. and Handcock & Dana, P.C.
District court for Douglas County, Honorable Peter C. Bataillon
Attorneys: John A. Svoboda and Adam J. Wachal (Gross & Welch) for appellants; William F. Hargens and Lauren R. Goodman (McGrath North) for appellees
Civil: Action for legal malpractice
Proceedings below: District court found all claims were barred by the two year statute of limitations and granted summary judgment against appellants.
Issues: Appellants assert the district court committed reversible error in: (1) finding the action was barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222; (2) entering summary judgment finding the action was barred by § 25-222; (3) failing to view the evidence in a light most favorable to appellants and give them all reasonable inferences from the evidence on summary judgment; (4) failing to address whether appellees’ conduct constituted a continuing tort which delayed the accrual of the causes of action for malpractice until the cessation of the tort; (5) failing to find appleees’ conduct constituted a continuing tort and rendered all acts of malpractice occurring within two years of the date the complaint was filed timely under § 25-222; (6) failing to conclude the continuous representation doctrine applied to toll § 25-222 with regard to the malpractice claims; (7) failing to address whether appellants’ allegations of malpractice as to the formation of Vanguard Dental Solutions were timely brought under § 25-222; (8) failing to find the allegations of malpractice as to formation of Vanguard Dental Solutions were timely brought under § 25-2222; (9) failing to address whether there were one or more separate representations between Midlands and Appellees which constituted a continuous representation and tolled § 25-222 as to malpractice committed during each separate representation; (10) failing to conclude the allegations of malpractice as to formation of Vanguard constituted a continuous representation that tolled § 25-222; (11) failing to conclude there were numerous separate acts of negligence on the part of appellees which appellants timely claimed within two years of the occurrence of the acts; and (12) failing to conclude there were numerous separate acts of appellees’ malpractice which appellant timely raised under § 25-222 including but not limited to (a) conflict of interest in advising Garvey to dissolve Midlands; (b) conflict of interest and malpractice in providing litigation services to Midlands; (c) falsification of Midlands’ 2010 tax return; (d) preparation of a false K-1 form appended to Midlands’ 1065 tax form; (e) wrongful refusal to timely return appellants’ legal file upon request; and (f) act of representing Garvey in personal matters and billing Midlands for those services.