 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas v. Monroe2/26/2001
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Case Summary
Appellant-plaintiff Carol M. Douglas ("Carol"), individually and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased son, Curtis K. Douglas ("Curtis"), appeals from the entry of summary judgment on Carol's legal malpractice claim in favor of appellee-defendant Deidre Monroe ("Monroe"). We affirm.
Issue
Carol presents one issue, which we restate as whether a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Monroe and Carol should have precluded summary judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
On April 20, 1997, Curtis, an eighteen-year-old freshman at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis ("IUPUI"), drowned at the Natatorium swimming facility. In August of that year, Carol began considering the possibility of filing a lawsuit in connection with Curtis's death. Because Carol was still grieving, her brother, Lionel Douglas ("Lionel"), looked into the possibility of bringing suit.
Shortly thereafter, while working as a security guard at a bank in Gary, Indiana, Lionel saw Monroe in the bank's lobby. He had gone to high school with her and knew she was now an attorney, but he had never engaged her professional services. They had a short conversation during which Lionel told her about his nephew's passing, indicated that counsel might be sought, and inquired as to whether there was a time limit in which to bring suit. Monroe responded that he had two years. Monroe mentioned neither the 180-day limit in which to file a tort claims notice nor that Lionel should not rely on her advice. They had another short conversation in the bank lobby thereafter. Lionel did not believe that Monroe was representing him or Carol when he was talking to her. Supp. Record at 66. Lionel conveyed to Carol the two-year statute of limitations.
In November 1997, Carol spoke with her current counsel and first learned about the tort claims notice requirement. By then, more than 180 days had lapsed since Curtis's death. On March 26, 1999, Carol filed a wrongful death/legal malpractice complaint against IUPUI, IUPUI Natatorium, Trustees of Indiana University, Edward Merkling, David Thibodeau, Chris Chin, Julie McKenney, Ryan J. Ellis, Danny A. Huffman, Jr., Adam Boatman, Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc., and Monroe. Carol alleged that Monroe's failure to inform Lionel of the 180-day tort claims notice requirement and Carol's subsequent failure to file a timely notice resulted in the barring of her wrongful death suit.
Monroe answered, denying the allegations. She then moved for summary judgment, asserting that no attorney-client relationship existed between her and Carol at any time, and that therefore, Carol's claim must fail. After Carol filed a response, the trial court held a hearing on the matter. On March 27, 2000, the trial court granted Monroe's motion for summary judgment.
Discussion and Decision
Carol argues that summary judgment was improperly granted because "there is at the very least a question of fact about the existence of the attorney-client relationship." She boldly contends that in "no way is Monroe entitled as a matter of law to escape all accountability for willingly giving incorrect legal advice about a critically important legal issue to someone who consulted her in her capacity as an attorney." Encompassed in her argument are assertions of detrimental reliance and agency.
"The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which can be determined as a matter of law." Bamberger &
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|