Krusesky

Krusesky v. Baugh

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 3d 562·188 Cal. Rptr. 57
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 198224829California2,182 words

Opinion

Opinion

This is another "oops" pension case. [1]

Plaintiff, Donna Krusesky, says the "oops" was caused by the negligence of her divorce lawyer, defendant Clyde A. Baugh, who neglected to tell her the military retirement pension benefits paid to her husband Alex at the time of their 1969 divorce were community property. The divorce ended a 23-year marriage during which Alex served continuously in the United States Navy. Donna alleges she remained unaware of her rights to the pension until February 25, 1980, when a lawyer she consulted on another matter pertaining to the divorce judgment advised her of her community property interest in the pension. Donna filed this suit for malpractice on November 13, 1980. [2] Baugh successfully demurred on the ground Krusesky's action was barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6.) [3] This appeal followed. We reverse the judgment. [4]

In Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176 [ 98 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ], the Supreme Court pronounced "... that in an action for professional malpractice against an attorney, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows, or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.