Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 753-B (2026)

Actions against attorneys

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Time when statute starts to run, generally. In actions alleging professional negligence, malpractice or breach of contract for legal service by a licensed attorney, the statute of limitations starts to run from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury, not from the discovery of the malpractice, negligence or breach of contract, except as provided in this section or as the statute of limitations may be suspended by other laws.

[PL 2001, c. 115, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 115, §3 (AFF).]

2. Rendering of title opinion. In an action alleging professional negligence in the rendering of a real estate title opinion, the statute of limitations starts to run on the date the negligence is discovered, but in no event may an action be commenced more than 20 years after the act or omission giving rise to the injury.

[PL 2001, c. 115, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 115, §3 (AFF).]

3. Drafting of last will and testament. In an action alleging professional negligence in the drafting of a last will and testament that has been offered for probate, the statute of limitations starts to run on the date the negligence is discovered.

[PL 2001, c. 115, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 115, §3 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2001, c. 115, §2 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 115, §3 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). · cites it 14× “" 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018). 2 The question we address in this appeal is whether the court-made doctrines of continuing representation and continuing negligence should apply in the determination of the date on which a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues under section…”

Dowling v. Salewski, 2007 ME 78 (Me. 2007). · cites it 5× “Specifically, he argues that an oral statement to the Dowlings that their title was “good” or “clear” does not invoke 14 M.R.S. § 753-B(2) (2006), which provides that the limitations period for bringing a malpractice action “starts to run on the date the negligence is…”

White v. McTeague, Higbee, Case, Cohen, Whitney & Toker, P.A., 809 A.2d 622 (Me. 2002). “The Legislature, however, has since repealed section 753-A and replaced it with 14 M.R.S.A. § 753-B (Supp.2001). P.L.2001, ch.”

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). · cites it 13× “” 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018).2 The question we 1 Section 752 identifies those exceptions as “actions on a judgment or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of any state, or of a justice of the peace in this State, and except as otherwise specially provided.”

Haskell v. Hastings (Me. Super. Ct 2010). · cites it 8× “1986) (codified at 14 M.R.S. § 753-B). Exceptions were made for actions arising from the "rendering of a real estate ti tIe opinion" or from "the drafting of a last will and testament that has been offered for probate"; the statute of limitations begins to run upon discovery of…”

Crocker Cirque II, LLC v. Abbodanza (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 4× “See 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2017).' 1. 2012 and 2015 Alleged Negligent Acts Plaintiffs argue that defendants' acts in 2012 and 2015 were "standalone negligent acts" and not additional calendar dates relating back to earlier negligent acts under a continuing duty theory.”

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein Shur, Sawyer & Nelson (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 3× “The continuing representation doctrine is inconsistent with the Legislature's decision in 14 M.R.S. § 753-B(l) to reject a discovery rule and to require that the six year statute of limitations run from the act or omission giving rise to the injury.”

Wyman v. United States Surgical Corp. (D. Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 753 (assault and battery, false imprisonment, and slander and libel: two years after the cause of action accrues); 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (attorneys: accrual from the date of malpractice, not the date of discovery, except for title opinions and the drafting of wills); 14 M.”

Brooks v. Lemieux (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “A cause of action against an attorney for malpractice accrues on the date that act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred, not on the date the malpractice is discovered.”

Crocker Cirque II, LLC v. Abbondanza (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “14 M.R.S. § 753-B. Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the statute of limitations defense.”

Mangan v. Rumo, 209 F.R.D. 29 (D. Me. 2002). “Section 753-A was repealed in 2001; the statute of limitations that the plaintiff apparently means to invoke is now found at 14 M.R.S.A. § 753-B. That statute merely establishes the time when the statute of limitations begins to run on actions alleging professional negligence,…”

Brown v. Thaler (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “’”° 14 M.RS.A. § 753-B (1)(2003). The Law Court holds that accrual of a cause of action begins at “the point at which a wrongful act produces an injury for which a potential plaintiff is entitled to seek judicial vindication.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 753-B(1) — 2 cases

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). “" 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018). 2 The question we address in this appeal is whether the court-made doctrines of continuing representation and continuing negligence should apply in the determination of the date on which a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues under section…”

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). “” 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018).2 The question we 1 Section 752 identifies those exceptions as “actions on a judgment or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of any state, or of a justice of the peace in this State, and except as otherwise specially provided.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 753-B(2) — 4 cases

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). “" 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018). 2 The question we address in this appeal is whether the court-made doctrines of continuing representation and continuing negligence should apply in the determination of the date on which a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues under section…”

Dowling v. Salewski, 2007 ME 78 (Me. 2007). “Specifically, he argues that an oral statement to the Dowlings that their title was “good” or “clear” does not invoke 14 M.R.S. § 753-B(2) (2006), which provides that the limitations period for bringing a malpractice action “starts to run on the date the negligence is…”

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90 (Me. 2019). “” 14 M.R.S. § 753-B (2018).2 The question we 1 Section 752 identifies those exceptions as “actions on a judgment or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of any state, or of a justice of the peace in this State, and except as otherwise specially provided.”

Haskell v. Hastings (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “1986) (codified at 14 M.R.S. § 753-B). Exceptions were made for actions arising from the "rendering of a real estate ti tIe opinion" or from "the drafting of a last will and testament that has been offered for probate"; the statute of limitations begins to run upon discovery of…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 753-B(l) — 2 cases

Dowling v. Salewski, 2007 ME 78 (Me. 2007). “Specifically, he argues that an oral statement to the Dowlings that their title was “good” or “clear” does not invoke 14 M.R.S. § 753-B(2) (2006), which provides that the limitations period for bringing a malpractice action “starts to run on the date the negligence is…”

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein Shur, Sawyer & Nelson (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “The continuing representation doctrine is inconsistent with the Legislature's decision in 14 M.R.S. § 753-B(l) to reject a discovery rule and to require that the six year statute of limitations run from the act or omission giving rise to the injury.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.