explaining the termination rule and refusing to apply it to claims for accountant negligence
How later courts described this case
- explaining the termination rule and refusing to apply it to claims for accountant negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Grendell, Judge,
concurring.
The majority opinion in
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs
(1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 , mandates concurrence with the majority’s decision in this case. However, the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice A. William Sweeney in
Investors REIT
is more compelling and would lead to a more equitable rule of law in accountant malpractice cases.
Treating one group (here, accountants) more favorably than other groups (physicians, attorneys, etc.) makes no sense and is against the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.
The “court’s essential role [is] in ensuring that cases be decided both fairly and equitably.”
Investors REIT, supra,
at 183, 546 N.E.2d at 213 (A.W. Sweeney, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Unfortunately, this court is not in a position where it can redress this inequity because of
Investors REIT.
Such redress can come only from a reconsideration of this statute-of-limitations issue by the Ohio Supreme Court or statutory modification by the Ohio legislature. Both such actions are strongly urged.