Phillip E. Edmondson v. Dax R. Womack ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                 RENDERED: JANUARY 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Court of Appeals
    NO. 2021-CA-0354-MR
    PHILLIP E. EDMONDSON                                              APPELLANT
    APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT
    v.               HONORABLE C. RENE’ WILLIAMS, JUDGE
    ACTION NO. 20-CI-00094
    DAX R. WOMACK AND WOMACK
    LAW OFFICE, LLC                                                    APPELLEES
    OPINION
    AFFIRMING
    ** ** ** ** **
    BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
    MCNEILL, JUDGE: Appellant, Phillip E. Edmondson (Edmondson), filed a
    Complaint in Union Circuit Court on August 5, 2020, against Appellees Dax R.
    Womack and Womack Law Office, LLC (Womack Law). According to the circuit
    court, Edmondson alleged that Appellees never returned $35,000.00 of a
    $50,000.00 cash bond Edmondson assigned to Appellees. However, neither party
    nor the circuit court elaborates much further concerning the underlying factual
    foundation of the present claim. Pursuant to the complaint, however, Appellees
    represented Edmondson on appeal from his criminal conviction for child sexual
    abuse. See Edmondson v. Commonwealth, 
    526 S.W.3d 78
     (Ky. 2017) (reversed
    and remanded for new trial). Edmondson agreed to pay for his representation, and
    to protect against a potential civil claim arising from the underlying alleged crimes,
    by assigning a $50,000.00 cash bond to Appellees. Edmondson states that he and
    Appellees agreed to remit $35,000.00 of that sum to Edmondson, the difference
    representing counsel’s fees. Thereafter, Edmondson claims that Womack informed
    him that he would not be receiving the remaining $35,000.00 balance because the
    Union Circuit Court revoked the bond and would be retaining the entire
    $50,000.00 sum. Instead, the record indicates that Appellees were paid the total
    amount. In his reply brief, Edmondson alleges that because he could not afford to
    pay Womack to retry his criminal case, he reluctantly entered an Alford plea. See
    North Carolina v. Alford, 
    400 U.S. 25
    , 
    91 S. Ct. 160
    , 
    27 L. Ed. 2d 162
     (1970).
    The circuit court dismissed the claim pursuant to CR1 12.02(f) as
    untimely filed under the one-year statute of limitations (SOL), KRS2 413.245,
    1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
    2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
    -2-
    titled “Actions for Professional Service Malpractice.” See also Seiller Waterman,
    LLC v. RLB Properties, Ltd.,
    Without language restricting the application of KRS
    413.245 to claims not involving malice, the plain
    language of the statute directs that the one-year limitation
    applies to any claim against an attorney arising out of any
    act or omission in rendering or failing to render
    professional services.
    
    610 S.W.3d 188
    , 204 (Ky. 2020), reh’g denied (Sept. 24, 2020). See also
    Abel v. Austin, 
    411 S.W.3d 728
    , 738 (Ky. 2013) (“[W]e see no reason to believe
    that the General Assembly intended to subject claims of attorneys’ misconduct to
    two different limitations periods.”). Edmondson appeals to this Court as a matter
    of right. Our standard of review is de novo and further discussed in Fox v.
    Grayson, 
    317 S.W.3d 1
    , 7 (Ky. 2010). For the following reasons, we affirm.
    Edmondson argues that because his claim is for fraud or mistake, the
    court should have applied the five-year SOL under KRS 413.120. The circuit court
    disagreed and instead determined that “[Edmondson’s] claims against [Appellees]
    allegedly occurred in March 2017 or earlier and the Complaint in this action was
    filed on August 5, 2020. [Edmondson’s] claims against [Appellees] are clearly
    beyond the one-year [SOL] provided [under] KRS 413.245.” In so holding, the
    court noted that Edmonson’s Complaint states that ”[a]t all times referenced
    herein, [Womack] was acting within the scope of his employment with [Womack
    Law].” We believe that the underlying claims at issue here clearly arose from an
    -3-
    attorney-client relationship between the parties. Therefore, we agree with the
    circuit court that KRS 413.245 is applicable here to bar the present case as
    untimely filed. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s order
    entered on February 25, 2021.
    ALL CONCUR.
    BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
    Randall C. Teague                          Zack N. Womack
    Madisonville, Kentucky                     Henderson, Kentucky
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021 CA 000354

Filed Date: 1/26/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/3/2023