Erica Rae Fox v. Harold V. Hughston III and Sheila Morgan

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for former criminal-defense attorneys in a legal-malpractice action brought by Erica Rae Fox. The court held that Fox's claims were barred under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act because they were untimely under both the occurrence and damage approaches to accrual, and because the statute's savings provision did not apply. The court also concluded that Fox's August 12, 2019, letter demonstrated knowledge of facts that reasonably should have led to discovery of her claims.

Holdings

1. Fox's claims accrued, at the latest, when the deadline for filing a written notice of appeal expired on March 11, 2019, because the alleged malpractice was the attorneys' failure to file a proper notice of appeal. Her November 5, 2021, complaint was therefore filed outside the ALSLA's two-year limitations period.
2. Fox's claims were also untimely under the damage approach because she first sustained legal damage on March 11, 2019, when she lost her right to appeal by failing to meet the notice-of-appeal deadline.
3. The ALSLA savings provision did not save Fox's claims because her August 12, 2019, letter showed that she knew facts that reasonably should have led her to discover the alleged malpractice. She therefore had six months from that date, until February 12, 2020, to sue.
4. Section 6-2-3 did not toll the limitations period because Fox's August 12, 2019, letter demonstrated actual knowledge that the attorneys' representation concerning a proper notice of appeal was false, or at least knowledge of facts that would have required a reasonably prudent person to inquire further.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fox's Alabama Legal Services Liability Act legal-malpractice claims were barred by the two-year limitations period under the occurrence approach.
2. Whether Fox's claims were barred under the damage or accrual approach.
3. Whether the ALSLA discovery or savings provision extended the time to file the action.
4. Whether the fraud-discovery tolling provision of Ala. Code § 6-2-3 extended the limitations period.

Disposition

affirmed