Kovacevich

Kovacevich v. McKinney & Wainwright

Bad Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 337·19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 692·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 592·93 Daily Journal DAR 6983·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4159
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 4, 1993F016529California2,641 words

Opinion

Opinion

Acting, J.

Kenneth Kovacevich appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants McKinney & Wainwright et al. (respondents) following a July 15, 1991, order granting respondents’ motion for nonsuit. In a bifurcated trial, the court determined the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 barred Kovacevich’s March 4, 1986, action for damages for legal malpractice.

Under section 340.6, the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice does not begin to run until a plaintiff knows of the attorney’s negligence and sustains actual and appreciable harm. (Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 ]; Sirott v. Latts (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 923, 928 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 206 ].) There is no apparent dispute about when Kovacevich “discovered” respondents’ alleged malpractice that eventually led to a lawsuit against Kovacevich by Wells Fargo Bank and a $927,390.73 summary judgment in favor of the bank. Here, as in other recently reported cases, the question is, when did Kovacevich sustain actual damages sufficient to trigger the running of the statute? Respondents maintain it was the date Kovacevich retained counsel to represent him in the…

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.