Safine

Safine v. Sinnott

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 4th 614·19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 52·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 479·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3250
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 3, 1993A057754California1,489 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

Stuart A. Safine, an attorney, filed an action against his ex-client, James M. Sinnott, for slightly over $4,000 in legal fees and costs advanced. Sinnott answered, stating as an affirmative defense that he had a claim against Safine contingent upon the outcome of a pending appeal. Sinnott then filed a cross-complaint for attorney malpractice, alleging that Safine’s negligence had caused Sinnott to incur $5,400 in attorney fees, $101.80 in costs, and a prospective loss of $31,890. The superior court, apparently subtracting Safine’s claim from Sinnott’s claim, entered judgment in favor of Sinnott for $28,209.30 plus interest.

Safine appeals, arguing that the court erred in finding that Sinnott’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. We agree, concluding that Sinnott was not entitled to take anything by his cross-complaint. We further find, however, that Sinnott was entitled to use his time-barred claim to offset Safine’s claim. It follows that although Sinnott is not entitled to judgment against Safine, Safine is not entitled to any money from Sinnott. We will modify the judgment to reflect our conclusions.

Background

The essential facts are undisputed. As…

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.