Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Johnnie F. Vann and Sirote & Permutt, P.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:04/16/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080618 Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Johnnie F. Vann and S i r o t e Appeal BOLIN, from favor this Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-02-437) Court Justice. Coilplus-Alabama, in & P e r m u t t , P.C. of Johnnie I n c . , appeals F. V a n n from and S i r o t e legal-malpractice action. We a summary & Permutt, affirm. judgment P.C., i n 1080618 Facts In firm 1998, Coilplus at which about the referred Athens he issuance to as of t h e "1999 a n d he qualify as Revenue Service was exempt-bond issued as retired. qualify and the law & Permutt, to advise i t in (hereinafter bonds Vann expansion recommended of i t s that through the I n d u s t r i a l Development advised being Coilplus that of the Vann amount was aware of the that o f $5,000,000 would Internal At the time the issuance discussed, the Board t h e 1999 b o n d s under the r u l e s i n the face b o n d s " ) and According as t a x e x e m p t , years after t h e bonds were outstanding before bonds attorney the the t o t a l 1984 capital t h e bonds were issued, and exceed $10,000,000. an that bonds had to the p a r t i e s , f o r small-issue three 1999, Vann a tax- had been i n 1984 f o r a C o i l p l u s p r o j e c t ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o the "1984 not plant. ("the IRS"). issue F. bonds") f o r the tax-exempt bonds bonds Johnnie $8,000,000 steel-manufacturing Athens, 1999 retained History then worked, S i r o t e 1 9 9 9 b o n d s be i s s u e d of and P r o c e d u r a l with issued 2 law firm years t h e amount o f any t o be See 26 U.S.C. § 1 4 4 . another to f o r the and t h e t h r e e t h e bonds been bonds expenditures combined w i t h including not sent issued, may On F e b r u a r y 16, Vann a letter 1080618 stating that Coilplus retired -- employee had o u t s t a n d i n g bonds i . e . , t h e 1984 b o n d s . with The B a n k 1999, t h e 1999 bonds Later February 19, 1 999, an o f New Y o r k , t h e t r u s t e e f o r t h e 1984 b o n d s , s e n t Vann documents 25, On t h a t had n o t been r e g a r d i n g t h e 1984 b o n d s . were i n 1999, t h e IRS sold On M a r c h to purchasers. questioned whether Coilplus's p r i o r c a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s as r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e documents and schedules t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d t h e 1 9 9 9 b o n d s , when a d d e d to the f a c e amount o f t h e 1999 b o n d s , e x c e e d e d t h e s m a l l - i s s u e amount allowed u n d e r 26 U.S.C. § 1 4 4 . concerned only whether c e r t a i n bonds cap allowed favorable Coilplus favorable or the e f f e c t by 26 private-letter § 144. ruling a l e t t e r on S e p t e m b e r ruling, along w o u l d be c a p a n d was n o t f o c u s e d o f t h e 1984 b o n d s U.S.C. apparently c a p i t a l expenditures c o u n t e d t o w a r d t h e $10,000,000 1984 The i n v e s t i g a t i o n Coilplus from a copy $10,000,000 received the IRS. 20, 2000, with on t h e on t h e Vann a sent informing i t of the of the p r i v a t e - l e t t e r ruling. A p p a r e n t l y t h e IRS c o n t i n u e d i n v e s t i g a t i n g and shifted bonds i t s focus in light t o whether of the outstanding 3 t h e 1999 bonds the issuance 1984 b o n d s o f t h e 1999 violated the 1080618 $10,000,000 cap, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the c a p i t a l expenditures. July 16, 2 0 0 1 , an IRS e m p l o y e e sent the accounting Coilplus, pertinent supervisor at the following which On e-mail to stated, in part: " I h a v e b e e n d o i n g some r e s e a r c h o n t h e $10 m i l l i o n Cap r u l e . I t seems t h a t t h e $5,000,000 b o n d that was outstanding on the date of issue (2/25/1999) o f t h e $8,000,000 bond h a s t o be included i n c o m p u t a t i o n o f t h e $10 m i l l i o n c a p . ( I n t e r n a l Revenue Code S e c t i o n 1 4 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ) . IF this i s the case, the t o t a l at the time of issue of the s e c o n d bond w o u l d be $13,000,000 a n d t h e r e f o r e , o v e r t h e c a p . We may b e w a s t i n g o u r t i m e t r y i n g t o come up w i t h o t h e r c a p i t a l expenditures." (Capitalization i n original.) On J u l y 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e p r e s i d e n t copied the IRS e-mail to o f C o i l p l u s f o r w a r d e d and several persons and added the following: " T h i s i s an e - m a i l f r o m t h e IRS A u d i t o r . I f her comments a r e t r u e , then C o i l p l u s - A L should have never p u r s u e d a n o n - t a x a b l e bond. I f this i s true, t h e n I w o u l d be c o m p e l l e d t o s a y t h a t i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e was a c o m p l e t e f a i l u r e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l services i n the matter of advice regarding the establishment o f our bond i s s u e . " On A u g u s t 9, 2 0 0 1 , t h e p r e s i d e n t s e n t an e - m a i l its parent "CPA regarding t h e 1984 b o n d s company, M i t s u b i s h i [Coilplus-AL] of C o i l p l u s , Larry 4 a n d t h e 1999 bonds t o International Tax-exempt Doss, bond- Corporation: 1080618 "Thursday 8/2/01- "Meetings all day with " J i m S c h i e f e l b e i n - B o n d T r u s t e e , B a n k o f New Y o r k " H e y w a r d H o s c h I I I - A t t o r n e y -- W a l s t o n Wells A n d e r s o n & B a i n s , B i r m i n g h a m , AL "Alma D r i p p s - I R S - T a x - e x e m p t bond a g e n t "Hazel D i n s m o r e - I R S , Tax-exempt bond group manager "Johnny [ s i c ] Vann-CPA t a x exempt bond c o u n c i l [ s i c ] o f t h e f i r m o f L a n i e r , F o r d , S h a v e r and Payne in H u n t s v i l l e , p r e v i o u s l y with Sirote & Permutt at the time of the bond i n c e p t i o n "Sean K e l l e y - V i c e P r e s . AmSouth Bank "Susan Journey-CPA. "I c a l l e d t h i s meeting t o s e t t l e t h i s i s s u e determine next a c t i o n s . Results of meeting: and "1. CPA t a x exempt bond was defunct from the b e g i n n i n g b e c a u s e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l 1984 $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 b o n d i s s u e was s t i l l i n e f f e c t when t h e 1 9 9 9 $ 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 b o n d i s s u e was instituted. A l l p r e v i o u s i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g CPA c a p i t a l expenditure controls to avoid exceeding the cap are now immaterial. Cap was exceeded from the bond's i n c e p t i o n d a t e i n Feb. 1999. T h i s f i n d i n g i s f i n a l as a g r e e d t o b y a l l p a r t i e s . "2. J o h n n y [ s i c ] V a n n h a s b e e n t e r m i n a t e d a s c o u n c i l [sic] o f any k i n d f o r CPA. Mr. Vann should be prepared to c a l l on h i s c a r r i e r of e r r o r s and o m i s s i o n s i n s u r a n c e . O u t s t a n d i n g b i l l t o CPA f r o m Mr. Vann r e g a r d i n g t h i s m a t t e r w i l l n o t be p a i d . "3. R e s t i t u t i o n and r e c o v e r y c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the revocation of the tax-exempt bond will be charged back to the parties who provided p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s a n d b o n d c o u n c i l [ s i c ] t o CPA. 5 1080618 "4. H e y w a r d H o s c h I I I h a s b e e n r e t a i n e d b y CPA a s b o n d c o u n c i l [ s i c ] f o r t h e new t a x a b l e b o n d . Hosch I I I i s c u r r e n t l y p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r t h e t o t a l amount o f c h a r g e s t h a t CPA w i l l r e q u e s t as restitution. L i t i g a t i o n w i l l be a v o i d e d , b u t i f b e l l i g e r e n c e i s encountered regarding r e s t i t u t i o n , this option will n e e d t o be s e r i o u s l y explored. "5. for Morgan t h e new "Friday Keegan has been t a x a b l e bond. 8/3/01, selected as underwriter B i r m i n g h a m AL "Met with Heyward Hosch I I I and F r a n k Kohn i n Birmingham law firm office f o r almost 4 hours w o r k i n g on s t r a t e g y f o r r e s t i t u t i o n a n d c o m m e n c e m e n t of t a x a b l e bond." On September 20, 2001, the 1999 bonds were retired refunded, e f f e c t i v e as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e i s s u a n c e . 25, the president 2002, letter, of C o i l p l u s sent Sirote On March & Permutt a stating: " I n 1999, C o i l p l u s - A l a b a m a , I n c . , a s u b s i d i a r y of M i t s u b i s h i I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o r p o r a t i o n , retained the s e r v i c e s o f S i r o t e & P e r m u t t as b o n d c o u n c i l [sic] f o r a b o n d i n t h e amount o f $ 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . Your firm's councilor [ s i c ] f o r t h i s b o n d was Johnny [ s i c ] Vann. Y o u r f i r m a n d Mr. Vann were recommended t o us b y o u r c o n t a c t s a t AmSouth Bank. " T h i s l e t t e r and e n c l o s e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n e x p l a i n how t h e a d v i c e a n d c o u n c i l [ s i c ] we r e c e i v e d f r o m y o u r f i r m was e r r o n e o u s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d how this error in professional advice caused the I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e t o d i s q u a l i f y and f o r c e t h e 6 and 1080618 dissolution substantial of the monetary "Mr. Vann, recommended t h a t bond, which we recommendation. tax-exempt l o s s to our bond leading company. to i n agreement w i t h AmSouth Bank, our company a p p l y f o r a t a x - e x e m p t did in compliance with their "The p o i n t on w h i c h t h e b o n d was r e v o k e d b y t h e I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e was t h e $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 c a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e volume cap. The IRS a u d i t e d o u r b o n d and d i s c o v e r e d t h a t s i n c e our o r i g i n a l $5,000,000 b o n d was s t i l l i n e f f e c t a t t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h e new $8,000,000 t a x exempt bond, the bond n e v e r a c t u a l l y q u a l i f i e d f o r the tax exemption because the t o t a l of the two bonds exceeded the $10,000,000 capital e x p e n d i t u r e volume cap. This critical issue was n e v e r b r o u g h t to our a t t e n t i o n by our councilor [sic], Mr. Vann and the b o n d was initiated in v i o l a t i o n of t h i s b a s i c q u a l i f y i n g c o n d i t i o n . The attached letter explains the events and their sequence of o c c u r r e n c e . "An e n c l o s e d s p r e a d s h e e t p r e s e n t s t h e l o s s e s t o our company i n c u r r e d f r o m f e e s paid directly to Sirote & Permutt. It also presents the losses i n c u r r e d f r o m one t i m e f e e s p a i d on t h e t a x - e x e m p t bond f o r which the full value was irretrievably f o r f e i t e d due t o t h e b o n d ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n f a i l u r e . On t h i s s p r e a d s h e e t , t h e r e i m b u r s e m e n t r e q u e s t s for o n e - t i m e f e e s a r e p r o - r a t e d b y t h e t i m e t h e b o n d was i n f o r c e and amount o f t i m e t h a t w o u l d h a v e r e m a i n e d i n t h e l i f e o f t h e b o n d a f t e r i t s r e v o c a t i o n by t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e . "As a m a t t e r o f h o n o r , e q u i t y , a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n , I submit t h i s matter to your a t t e n t i o n f o r a f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e f i n a n c i a l r e s o l u t i o n b a s e d on t h e s e r e a l a n d d o c u m e n t e d l o s s e s t o o u r c o m p a n y . " 7 1080618 On & June Permutt 24, 2002, responded the officer the to chief operating letter, as stating of Sirote follows: "Thank you f o r l e t t e r and a c c o m p a n y i n g m a t e r i a l s c o n c e r n i n g C o i l p l u s ' s 1999 b o n d i s s u e . "We h a v e r e a d t h e m a t e r i a l s you f o r w a r d e d and talked with Johnnie Vann concerning the circumstances surrounding the 1999 bond i s s u e as w e l l as h i s e f f o r t s on y o u r b e h a l f s i n c e S e p t e m b e r o f 2001 i n r e p l a c i n g t h e 1999 i s s u e w i t h y o u r r e c e n t t a x a b l e i s s u e , and t h e r e s u l t s t h e r e o f . " W h i l e we r e g r e t v e r y much a n y e r r o r s Mr. V a n n may h a v e made i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Coilplus, we do not under the circumstances b e l i e v e t h a t e q u i t y demands r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f amounts e x p e n d e d by C o i l p l u s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the 1999 issue. I trust that you will understand and a p p r e c i a t e our p o s i t i o n . " On October 31, 2002, Coilplus Permutt under the Alabama L e g a l 570 et seq., negligence, fiduciary Ala. Code wantonness, duty, and have redeemed the 1975 suppression amended i t s c o m p l a i n t 1984 Vann and ("the of of ALSLA"), contract, material to i n c l u d e the bonds before the facts. fact the tax-exempt s t a t u s of the if & and Sirote Permutt advice. 8 had given i t 6-5¬ of a Coilplus that 1999 § & alleging breach issued, thus ensuring Vann Sirote Services L i a b i l i t y Act, breach later sued i t could bonds 1999 correct were bonds, legal 1080618 On December (hereinafter filed an 2002, collectively answer defenses, 2, in including 5-574, Ala. Code they assertion b a r r e d by t h e t w o - y e a r statute 1 975. and referred which an Vann The to Sirote as raised that "the motion which illness. to remove the t r i a l In March the case 2007, from c o u r t g r a n t e d , and on were the filed administrative the p a r t i e s 6¬ trial recovering the p a r t i e s the claims s e t out i n § placed c o u r t ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d o c k e t b e c a u s e V a n n was a serious affirmative Coilplus's was Permutt defendants") several of l i m i t a t i o n s case & a from joint docket, proceeded with discovery. On April 29, 2008, the defendants filed a summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b a s e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a l l C o i l p l u s ' s were b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t o r y Coilplus trial filed court additional trial period a memorandum i n o p p o s i t i o n held briefs court limitations a hearing from entered on the the p a r t i e s . a summary On i n the ALSLA. to the motion. motion January judgment in and 7, of 2009, favor of Review " ' " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e F a r m M u t . A u t o . I n s . C o . , 9 The accepted defendants. Standard claims the the 1080618 8 8 6 So. 2 d 72 , 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same standard o f r e v i e w as the t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t h a s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact exists and that t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v . H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 2 - 5 3 ( A l a . 2004). In making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t . W i l s o n v . B r o w n , 496 So. 2 d 7 5 6 , 758 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e m o v a n t m a k e s a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o the nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2 d 7 9 4 , 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' W e s t v . F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2 d 87 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " Gooden v. City (quoting Prince v. i n turn Dow quoting 1035, 1038-39 o f T a l l a d e g a , 966 Poole, v. 935 So. So. Alabama 2d 2d 232, 431, Democratic 235 442 ( A l a . 2007) ( A l a . 2006), Party, 897 So. 2d is whether (Ala. 2004)). Arguments The issue Coilplus's The presented for review action resolution when t h e s t a t u t e brought of this under issue in this the ALSLA depends of l i m i t a t i o n s 10 on case was a timely filed. d e t e r m i n a t i o n of on C o i l p l u s ' s c l a i m s began to 1080618 run. Coilplus the ALSLA of submits (negligence, a f i d u c i a r y duty, that § 6-5-570, incorporates that and s u p p r e s s i o n A l a . Code into disallowance statute bonds of of a l l common-law (Ala. 1996), when held that arising t h e IRS f i r s t n o t on J u l y of the p o s s i b l e t h e 1999 b o n d s ALSLA, o u t o f an IRS sends notice of a concluded that the 1 6 , 2 0 0 1 , when disallowance and t h a t a cause of C o i l p l u s f u r t h e r argues that the i n the present case erroneously issued, the and i n System Dynamics I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . of a f i d u c i a r y duty only part of l i m i t a t i o n s began t o r u n i n F e b r u a r y were notice a facts) Coilplus of a deduction. court of m a t e r i a l breach a legal-services provider. 683 S o . 2 d 419 trial Court accrues under statutory v. liability claims and this f o r breach 1975, t h e ALSLA argues that action multiple wantonness, breach of c o n t r a c t , causes of a c t i o n against Boykin, i t brought the only 1 9 9 9 when t h e t h e IRS of the tax-exempt difference sent status between the b r e a c h a l l e g e d i n t h e p r e s e n t case and t h e b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y duty alleged i n System Dynamics i s t h a t present are case Coilplus the defendants i n the lawyers. argues that i t s claims wantonness d i d not accrue u n t i l 11 there of negligence was a " m a n i f e s t , and present 1080618 injury" under Griffin 2008). With regard ALSLA, to C o i l p l u s argues the specific and exceptions that v. U n o c a l i t s fraud that § statutory period i n actions fraud, prosecute, The under seeking a f t e r which i s one ALSLA limitations in § giving to 1999, the rise caselaw relief 245 brought are the ground as a c c r u e d u n t i l that under the sets out party found provides fraud has in § by the two-year 6-5-574(a) and that the claims occurred two years act on period or (Ala. 1991)(holding that the 1 of omission February 25, under imposed by § that the s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s o r as s e t o u t i n M i c h a e l to brought statute P a n e l l , 756 to run from the date of the occurrence of 6-5-574(b). They a r g u e t h a t e i t h e r as s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e the the discovery barred Coilplus's of actions a l l C o i l p l u s ' s claims So. 2d period of the t o r t i o u s v. B e a s l e y , statutory 583 S o . limitations C o i l p l u s does not a d d r e s s i t s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t claim i t s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s i t . 1 in 2 d 291 ( A l a . of t h e ALSLA i n t e r p r e t i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s act or omission), 2d on the aggrieved argue (Ala.1999)(holding begins So. f o r t h e commencement o f when t h e 1 9 9 9 b o n d s w e r e i s s u e d . 6-5-574(a), 862 claim 6-5-574 of the exceptions defendants the 990 t o t h a t p e r i o d a n d t h a t § 6-2-3, w h i c h c l a i m must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d the Corp., 12 1080618 period begins to action and from not omission), further is a is assuming argue caselaw of the accrual of o c c u r r e n c e of the untimely. that the The System the act or defendants six-month or case involved fraud claim, the merit because could come w i t h i n only facts gave incorrect show an by attempts relying savings action the Coilplus the by show were, by incorrect Discussion 13 § accrues that they are argue because to Coilplus's the claim i s without that the of § fraud 6-2-3 i n essence, Coilplus suppression gave C o i l p l u s regard provision l e g a l a d v i c e , and intentional cases that to Coilplus on With argue tolling of a c t i o n are not c o n t r o l l i n g ALSLA. failed to escape Specifically, Griffin defendants alleged intentionally Coilplus distinguishable. Dynamics and one that a d d r e s s i n g when a c a u s e legal-malpractice neither of the action even date untimely. inapplicable that the date defendants 6-5-574 a n d in that the s e t f o r t h i n § 6-5-574(a) a p p l i e s , C o i l p l u s ' s likewise The from Coilplus's argue provision run alleged Vann legal (i.e., claim when that the Vann nothing to that advice). Vann 1080618 There brought is a 1975. i s only "one f o r m and i n Alabama a g a i n s t action" that a legal-service provider, legal-service-liability Section cause of 6-5-572, A l a . action. Code 1975, § 6-5-573, provides may be and that Ala. Code that "[a] legal service l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n embraces a l l claims f o r i n j u r i e s o r damages or w r o n g f u l death w h e t h e r i n c o n t r a c t o r i n t o r t a n d w h e t h e r b a s e d on an i n t e n t i o n a l o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l a c t o r o m i s s i o n . A l e g a l s e r v i c e [ ] l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n e m b r a c e s any form o f a c t i o n i n w h i c h a l i t i g a n t may s e e k l e g a l r e d r e s s for a w r o n g or i n j u r y and every l e g a l theory of r e c o v e r y , w h e t h e r common l a w o r s t a t u t o r y , a v a i l a b l e to a l i t i g a n t i n a c o u r t i n the S t a t e of Alabama now or i n the f u t u r e . " This the includes the multiple claims brought by Coilplus under ALSLA. Section 6-5-574, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "(a) A l l l e g a l s e r v i c e l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n s a g a i n s t a l e g a l s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r m u s t be c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n two years a f t e r the act or o m i s s i o n or failure giving rise to the claim, and not afterwards; provided, that i f the cause of action is not discovered and could not reasonably have been d i s c o v e r e d w i t h i n such p e r i o d , then the a c t i o n may be c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n s i x m o n t h s f r o m t h e d a t e o f s u c h discovery or the date of d i s c o v e r y of f a c t s w h i c h would r e a s o n a b l y l e a d to such d i s c o v e r y , whichever is e a r l i e r ; provided, f u r t h e r , t h a t i n no e v e n t may t h e a c t i o n be c o m m e n c e d m o r e t h a n f o u r y e a r s a f t e r s u c h a c t o r o m i s s i o n o r f a i l u r e ; e x c e p t , t h a t an a c t or o m i s s i o n or f a i l u r e g i v i n g r i s e to a c l a i m which o c c u r r e d b e f o r e A u g u s t 1, 1 9 8 7 , s h a l l not in any e v e n t be b a r r e d u n t i l t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f one year from such date. 14 1080618 "(b) Subsection (a) o f t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l b e subject to a l l e x i s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s of law r e l a t i n g to the computation of statutory periods of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r t h e commencement o f a c t i o n s , n a m e l y , S e c t i o n s 6 - 2 - 1 , 6 - 2 - 2 , 6-2-3, 6 - 2 - 5 , 6-2-6, 6-2-8, 6-2-9, 6 - 2 - 1 0 , 6 - 2 - 1 3 , 6 - 2 - 1 5 , 6 - 2 - 1 6 , 6 - 2 - 1 7 , 6-23 0 , a n d 6-2-39; p r o v i d e d , that notwithstanding any provisions o f s u c h s e c t i o n s , no a c t i o n s h a l l be commenced more than four years after the a c t , omission, or f a i l u r e complained of; except, that i n the case of a minor under f o u r years o f age, such minor s h a l l have u n t i l h i s or h e r e i g h t h b i r t h d a y t o commence s u c h a c t i o n . " In s h o r t , a § 6-5-574(a) r e q u i r e s legal-malpractice omission 574(b) or f a i l u r e subjects relating to ameliorative discovery of facts within giving rise the two-year the limitations. action discovery would two y e a r s of the 6-5-574(a) period after to the action. period also reasonably period. absolute b a r on Under § occurring 1987. 15 to other law periods of for there on during is an the date of discovery t o such d i s c o v e r y 6-5-574(a), a l l claims 6-5- provides c a u s e o f a c t i o n was n o t known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f year Section or the date of the lead commence the act or statutory o f s i x months from of the cause of a c t i o n that a plaintiff limitations computation Section that a or a f t e r i f the t h e twofour-year August 1, 1080618 In the present case, Coilplus asserted five the ALSLA a g a i n s t the defendants. specifically i t s breach-of-contract brief, address t h i s Court w i l l not address J e f f e r s o n County Gas that court an unless appeals presented Coilplus's fraud regarding the purposes, which review the wantonness, Dist., and argued breach 2 d 317 for later in a in i t s claim matter to Cullman- § on appeal 6-5-574(b), certain statutes statute-of-limitations the Coilplus's a not T u c k e r v. Under subject does (Ala. 200 3)(holding discuss of time of of So. Coilplus See in brief). discuss remainder i t . not is computation and 864 will claim we Because c l a i m s under opinion. claims fiduciary duty) We will (negligence, in light of the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s e t f o r t h i n § 6-5-574 and relevant In caselaw Denbo v. interpreting DeBray, 968 the So. 2d ALSLA. 983 ( A l a . 2006), this Court d i s c u s s e d the caselaw a p p l y i n g the "occurrence" t e s t the "damage" t e s t limitations client and in § filed the litigation i n d e t e r m i n i n g when t h e t w o - y e a r 6-5-574 b e g i n s a legal-malpractice law firm that involving the to run. action employed the client and 16 In statute Denbo, a and of former against his attorney attorney the following Environmental 1080618 Protection Agency disposing of litigation, the s i t e out of the c l i e n t ' s hazardous waste. the c l i e n t certificates at arising provided of insurance and a s k e d that the law f i r m periodically which the attorney were billed client and been notified. case the client been not was insurance by that advice informed that the f o r costs client and of the reimburse the c l i e n t had settle 2002, companies had not manner that their consent. and were had been Because of the claims companies f o r the cost of the settlement 17 to In March fees the The companies attorney litigation, the insurance agreed in a timely without asked i f the and costs, the pending claims. the insurance of the l i t i g a t i o n attorney and repeatedly companies had not been n o t i f i e d commencement fees from the attorney. of insurance i n the l i t i g a t i o n the c l i e n t the activities the the insurance I n A u g u s t 2000, responsible incurred client of copies t o 2000, t h e for attorney regarding the c l i e n t b a s e d on notified 1993 engaged The with notify the employees of the law f i r m assured the From the c l i e n t companies had been n o t i f i e d attorney beginning the challenged the attorney actively paid. the the attorney covering companies of the l i t i g a t i o n . and From activities in the at the refused to or f o r the 1080618 costs of l i t i g a t i o n . The client c l a i m b a s e d on t h e a t t o r n e y ' s companies, 2002. basis that defendants the action limitations In Court client damage. 782 was for a barred Court P.C., the 807 of l i m i t a t i o n s by t h e two-year begins court the in (Ala. t o run from i n the legal-malpractice action S o . 2 d 212 "occurrence" limitations plurality ( A l a . 2000), rule, opinion), i n which which bases of different limitations "accrues." 3 Massey & under which the the date sustains and Ex The v. that an i n j u r y The C o u r t a l s o d i s c u s s e d E x p a r t e P a n e l l , ( A l a . 1999)(a on t h e granted. of Floyd 2001), 1, statute two of action rule S o . 2 d 508 on O c t o b e r judgment the statute a cause the insurance filed summary discussed "damage" legal-malpractice to notify the t r i a l f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when t o r u n , i . e . , when Stotser, 862 this discussed statute moved i n t h e ALSLA, w h i c h Denbo, approaches begins failure a w h i c h was d e e m e d t o h a v e b e e n The 2 filed the or 756 S o . 2 d parte the Court r e l i e d Seabol, on t h e the running of the statute on t h e d a t e t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n g i v i n g r i s e of to the The c l i e n t filed his action on M a r c h 26, 2003, b u t pursuant to a " t o l l i n g agreement" between t h e p a r t i e s , t h e a c t i o n was d e e m e d t o h a v e b e e n f i l e d on O c t o b e r 1, 2 0 0 2 . 2 F l o y d v. Massey & S t o t s e r r e l i e d B e a s l e y , 583 S o . 2 d 245 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . 3 18 i n p a r t upon M i c h e a l v. 1080618 claim occurred a n d n o t when Court i n Denbo recognized malpractice Instead, was i s first the s p l i t Court held that or the "occurrence" in legalsplit. under either the the c l i e n t ' s "damage" complaint untimely. the "occurrence" determined that the statute (i.e., rule, complaint of l i m i t a t i o n s was o c c u r r e d more t h a n two y e a r s b e f o r e concluded six-month grace cause of a c t i o n within notified October afforded Court t h a t even period companies client's the the insurance the f i l i n g though from period, Denbo two-year the time companies) of the action. § 6-5-574(a) allows f o r of discovery 1, 2 0 0 2 , was 2002 was that Accordingly, likewise i f the had the action, by t h e not filed extension of t h e "damage" been on time approach, the t h a t t h e c l a i m was t i m e - b a r r e d . The including Under notified they outside the six-month by § 6-5-574(a). damage, the c l i e n t i n March of the claims. concluded by in i s n o t , or c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y be, d i s c o v e r e d the two-year insurance Court barred to timely notify Court the because the a t t o r n e y ' s a c t or omission the f a i l u r e a This to resolve the approach, Under The suffered. of authority a c t i o n s but d i d not e l e c t the approach damage the legal 19 fees he had paid the 1080618 attorney, client in addition contended companies claims, i f the to would the settlement been have companies had The Denbo by paid the Court also the years of the held before the that the l e g a l - m a l p r a c t i c e four years legal-malpractice action. The Court the client's the time 2-3 was because As case and to escape t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f § 6-2-3 Court applicable, t h e r e had was determined the c l i e n t ' s b e e n no the case for this Court scenario. P a n e l l and went bar that, on of to the ALSLA by by § 66¬ without occurrence c l a i m was merit reliance. to e l e c t the between the present approach c l a i m s are u n t i m e l y occurrence approach under discussed in the act or omission g i v i n g r i s e Vann's 20 of discuss need i n the Under of that § to the e x t e n t f r a u d c l a i m was Coilplus's 6-5- filing made a v a i l a b l e reasonable Ex p a r t e S e a b o l , Coilplus's as the i n D e n b o , t h e r e i s no t h e damage a p p r o a c h : either the attempt of § the payment before the The filing the a b s o l u t e f o u r - y e a r bar f e e s o c c u r r e d more t h a n 5-574(b). insurance of 574(b) b e c a u s e b o t h t h e a t t o r n e y ' s o m i s s i o n and invoking the action. c l a i m s were p r e c l u d e d by legal which been p r o p e r l y n o t i f i e d o c c u r r e d m o r e t h a t two legal-malpractice amount, opinion that the 1999 to bonds 1080618 qualified occurred bonds 30, f o r tax-exempt no l a t e r were 2002, issued. after than s t a t u s when t h e y Coilplus applies, status when first among savings provision knowledge was questionable sent IRS e m p l o y e e s , others, Coilplus on filed 2001, had r u n . the tax-exempt on J u l y 16, 2 0 0 1 , addressing the t a x when and t h e bond to more t h a n October o f § 6-5-574(a) or, at the l a t e s t , counsel, 2, i t s complaint that the e-mail new August on s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t u s o f t h e 1999 b o n d s with i t s complaint had o f t h e 1999 b o n d s t h e IRS e m p l o y e e exempt met Coilplus t h e 1999 filed the two-year Assuming that the six-month That a c t 25, 1999, t h e date February d i d not. discuss Doss trustee, the issue. 6 months a f t e r August 2, 2 0 0 1 . Coilplus's damage a p p r o a c h the Court at the damage qualify likewise when 25, time-barred r e c o g n i z e d i n M i c h a e l v. B e a s l e y . the p l a i n t i f f In t h i s February are h e l d t h a t a cause of a c t i o n time damage. claims first case, C o i l p l u s t h e 1999 bonds 1 9 9 9 , when f o r tax-exempt were those status. 21 sold bonds the In Michael, under t h e ALSLA suffers first under legal suffered legal as t a x - e x e m p t accrues injury or i n j u r y or bonds d i d not and c o u l d on not 1080618 Coilplus when argues that t h e IRS n o t i f i e d tax exempt, misplaced. ("the Coilplus that but i t sr e l i a n c e In System CEO") on Dynamics, of the corporation certain payments against the corporation the i t slegal corporation to him. The based i n 2001 t h e 1999 b o n d s were n o t System Dynamics, the chief supra, executive IRS l a t e r assessed is officer a t o make penalty on some o f t h o s e p a y m e n t s , a n d This b e e n no c o m p l e t e d w r o n g u n t i l Court held that d i d not begin there had a penalty t h e IRS a s s e s s e d that the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s First, occurred caused the c o r p o r a t i o n s u e d t h e CEO. IRS's assessment. injury and to run u n t i l the System Dynamics d i d not i n v o l v e t h e ALSLA and t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f limitations, claims. enacted by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e Second, System Dynamics i s f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the present case. on the corporation the fact that In System Dynamics, t h i s would allow t h e payments would allow a portion the payments. liability for legal-malpractice At t o t h e CEO there relied d i d n o t know w h e t h e r t h e I R S as b u s i n e s s of the payments, best, Court or would existed a deductions, disallow a l l potential tax a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s when t h e p a y m e n t s w e r e made t o t h e CEO, a n d , i n t h e e n d , t h e I R S d i s a l l o w e d 22 only a p o r t i o n of the 1080618 payments. In other words, because the c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e payments that payments as Coilplus in the resulted business issuance of and t h a t a later in a attempt disallowance deductions. i s a l l e g i n g that issuance not improper s u f f e r e d no i m m e d i a t e h a r m a s a r e s u l t t h e p a y m e n t s ; i t was o n l y payments were In to deduct of the some that t h e 1999 bonds of the present the i n c o r r e c t l e g a l advice bonds those case, resulted were improper from their would n o t have been issued but f o r Vann's i n c o r r e c t l e g a l a d v i c e tax exempt. Coilplus argument "manifest, not have Coilplus v. Unocal also that relies i t s cause present on a t o x i c - t o r t of action present injury until supra, this Court held substance-exposure case, a p l a i n t i f f ' s only is when t h e r e clear case and t h a t has o c c u r r e d Griffin i s factually because Griffin involved that present notified In Griffin in a toxic- that the accrues injury. distinguishable a claim a Coilplus did cause of a c t i o n a manifest, that until t h e IRS t h e 1999 bonds were n o t t a x exempt. Corp., were case t o support i t s d i d not accrue i n j u r y " had occurred a manifest, that t h a t t h e 1999 b o n d s from It this plaintiff's d e c e d e n t d e v e l o p e d l e u k e m i a as a r e s u l t o f , b u t s u b s e q u e n t t o , 23 1080618 exposure to a c e r t a i n t o x i c chemical while the defendant; Also, the i n an i t d i d not i n v o l v e appendix to G r i f f i n , legislature's right limitations one o f t h o s e he was employed a legal-malpractice 4 Justice to prescribe for different actions, Harwood different recognizing by claim. discussed statutes of t h e ALSLA i s statutes: "The p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t e r m ' a c c r u e d ' i n § 6 - 2 - 3 0 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t o x i c - s u b s t a n c e - e x p o s u r e cases should honor the r u l e t h a t a c a u s e o f a c t i o n a c c r u e s o n l y when t h e r e h a s occurred a manifest, present i n j u r y . I understand 'manifest' in this context t o mean an injury m a n i f e s t e d by o b s e r v a b l e s i g n s o r symptoms o r t h e existence of which i s medically identifiable. 'Manifest' in this s e n s e d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e injured p e r s o n must be p e r s o n a l l y aware o f t h e i n j u r y o r m u s t know i t s c a u s e o r o r i g i n . A l l that i s r e q u i r e d i s t h a t t h e r e be i n f a c t a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y m a n i f e s t e d , even i f t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s ignorant of i t for some period after i t s development. T h i s a p p r o a c h i s mandated by t h e r u l e s t a t e d as e a r l y as K e l l y v. S h r o p s h i r e , 199 A l a . 602 , 6 0 5 , 75 S o . 2 9 1 , 2 92 ( 1 9 1 7 ) , a n d a s l a t e a s G i l m o r e v . M & B R e a l t y C o . , L L C , 895 S o . 2 d 200 , 208 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d on i n n u m e r a b l e o c c a s i o n s in between, that ' p l a i n t i f f ' s ignorance of the t o r t or injury, at least i f there i s no fraudulent c o n c e a l m e n t by d e f e n d a n t , [does n o t ] p o s t p o n e t h e running of the s t a t u t e [of l i m i t a t i o n s ] u n t i l the tort or i n j u r y i s discovered.' An oft-declared companion r u l e i s that ' t h i s Court w i l l not apply I n U n o c a l , t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d J u s t i c e Harwood's d i s s e n t i n C l i n e v . A s h l a n d , I n c . , 970 S o . 2 d 755 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , a s t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n G r i f f i n a n d a t t a c h e d t h e d i s s e n t a s an appendix. 4 24 1080618 the discovery rule unless i t is specifically p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . ' T r a v i s v . Z i t e r , 681 So. 2 d 1 3 4 8 , 1354 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . "We o p e r a t e w i t h i n o u r p r o p e r s p h e r e when we undertake to determine the construction that should be a s c r i b e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e l y p r e s c r i b e d term ' a c c r u e d ' i n § 6 - 2 - 3 0 ( a ) ; we w o u l d o p e r a t e outside t h a t s p h e r e w e r e we t o a t t e m p t t o a d d t o t h e t e x t o f § 6-2-30(a) so as t o s u p e r i m p o s e some s o r t of discovery feature. Thus, I r e j e c t t h e n o t i o n that our p r i o r and p r e s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t o f a 'manifest,' p r e s e n t i n j u r y means t h a t t h e i n j u r y m u s t b e o b v i o u s t o a n d known b y t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y . T h a t w o u l d s i m p l y represent the c r e a t i o n of a type of discovery r u l e . I r e a f f i r m that c r e a t i o n of a discovery rule l i e s w i t h i n the province of the l e g i s l a t u r e , which i s equipped to weigh the competing public-policy arguments and t o f a s h i o n v a r i a t i o n s o f discovery p r i n c i p l e s t a i l o r e d to the p a r t i c u l a r nature of each a f f e c t e d cause of a c t i o n . The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s s h o w n i t s s p e c i a l c a p a b i l i t y i n t h a t r e g a r d by s t r u c t u r i n g v a r i a t i o n s of discovery features i n the f o l l o w i n g s t a t u t e s : § 6-2-3; § 6 - 2 - 3 0 ( b ) ; § 6 - 5 - 4 8 2 ; § 6-55 0 2 ( b ) ; § 6 - 5 - 5 7 4 ( a ) ; § 7 - 2 A - 5 0 6 ( 2 ) ; § 8 - 1 9 - 1 4 ; § 8¬ 2 6 A - 1 6 ( c ) ; a n d § 8-2 7-5." 990 So. 2d a t 310-11 With "subject regard commencement claims added). to Coilplus's fraud to a l le x i s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s computation Section (emphasis 6-2-3 of statutory of periods actions," including i s an and p r o v i d e s accrual as claim, of law r e l a t i n g of § provision follows: 25 § 6-5-574(a) i s limitations 6-2-3. § to the for the 6-5-574(b). applicable to fraud 1080618 "In a c t i o n s seeking r e l i e f of the ground of f r a u d where t h e s t a t u t e has c r e a t e d a b a r , t h e c l a i m m u s t n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g a c c r u e d u n t i l the discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , a f t e r w h i c h he m u s t h a v e two years w i t h i n which to p r o s e c u t e h i s a c t i o n . " Coilplus dated that July 16, 2001, bonds 1999 was states may not filed well claim on as applicable first have October within the set to 30, in § e-mail put been limit 6-2-3 a l l claims from the Coilplus on exempt and tax 2002. two-year out the IRS employee notice that that i t s action C o i l p l u s argues that for and brought a this without was fraudulent-suppression within under the § four-year 6-5-574(b). defendants argue that C o i l p l u s ' s f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n is the bar The claim merit. Coilplus alleged suppressed material in facts i t s complaint that t o c o m m u n i c a t e t o C o i l p l u s as s u p p r e s s e d were that the that the t h e y were under i t s counsel; the defendants an obligation facts allegedly defendants: "(a) f a i l e d to a d v i s e [ C o i l p l u s ] t h a t the 1999 Bonds w o u l d n o t , under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , q u a l i f y as a t a x - e x e m p t i s s u e u n d e r S e c t i o n 144 o f t h e C o d e ; "(b) f a i l e d t o a d v i s e [ C o i l p l u s ] t h a t [ C o i l p l u s ] had to r e t i r e the 1984 Bond i s s u e p r i o r t o the c l o s i n g o f t h e 1999 Bonds, i n order f o r the 1999 B o n d s t o q u a l i f y as t a x - e x e m p t ; 26 1080618 " ( c ) f a i l e d t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e 1984 B o n d i s s u e was r e t i r e d p r i o r t o t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e 1999 B o n d s so t h a t t h e a g g r e g a t e p r i n c i p a l amount o f a l l b o n d s outstanding at such time did not exceed $10,000,000.00; "(d) failed to advise [Coilplus] of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 1999 B o n d s as t a x - e x e m p t ; and "(e) in general, failed to properly and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y p e r f o r m t h e i r d u t i e s as b o n d counsel and c l o s i n g a t t o r n e y s . " Coilplus has the burden comes w i t h i n the t o l l i n g Seabol, So. 782 malpractice commenced aggrieved however, after 2d at action within party of proving i t s fraud p r o v i s i o n o f § 6-2-3. 215 based two that ("[U]nder on years Ex parte 6-5-574(b), § See a legal allegations of after discovery the fraud of the f a c t c o n s t i t u t i n g the fraud; t h a t no a c t i o n may the a c t or acts be claim must by The the provided, commenced more t h a n f o u r constituting fraud. be burden t h e p l a i n t i f f t o show t h a t he comes w i t h i n t h e § 6-2-3 years i s on tolling provision."). Even assuming that Coilplus met i t s burden of showing t h a t i t s f r a u d c l a i m came w i t h i n t h e t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n , i t h a s n o t met the the elements of fraudulent defendant had a duty to suppression, disclose 27 an w h i c h a r e : (1) existing material 1080618 fact; (2) t h e d e f e n d a n t fact; (3) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s act or r e f r a i n actual damage from Contract 2005). "'[A]n Carriers, 2009] Flournoy, time exempt. , 932 So. 2d will 8 8 3 , 8 91 ( A l a . l i e only [Ms. 1 0 5 0 0 2 9 , F e b r u a r y ( A l a . 1993)). complaint issued, alleges knew t h a t t a x exempt. i n d i c a t i n g that Vann There when he a d v i s e d C o i l p l u s t h a t Therefore, McGarry v. that Vann, t h e bonds has been knew t h a t 20, In the present yet i n t e n t i o n a l l y issued a legal opinion were i f the suppressed.'" ( A l a . 200 9) ( q u o t i n g t h e 1999 b o n d s were presented taxable LLC, suffered F r e i g h t l i n e r , LLC v. f o r suppression i n Coilplus's 1999 b o n d s material (4) t h e p l a i n t i f f result. 624 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 2 nothing taxable, the and I n c . v. Rebar, So. 3d case, that a c t u a l l y knows t h e f a c t a l l e g e d t o be Cook's Pest C o n t r o l , the acting; action or suppressed suppression induced the p l a i n t i f f to as a p r o x i m a t e Whatley defendant concealed at were s t a t i n g that no evidence t h e 1999 b o n d s were t h e bonds w o u l d be t a x Coilplus's suppression claim fails. Conclusion Because barred Coilplus's under regardless of legal-malpractice a l l applicable whether the provisions "occurrence" 28 action of § approach i s time- 6-5-574, or the 1080618 "damage" accrued, to approach and because support trial i s used a claim to Coilplus determine failed when to present that any o f f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n , we c o u r t ' s summary judgment action evidence affirm the i n favor of the defendants. AFFIRMED. Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , Stuart, 29 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.