Maddox v. Burlingame

In Maddox v. Burlingame, 205 Mich App 446, 450; 517 NW2d 816 (1994), the defendant advised the plaintiffs regarding the sale of a franchise business. Several months after the closing, the defendant revised the sale agreement to accommodate the purchasers' financial difficulties. Id. A year later, the defendant prepared a letter to the purchasers on behalf of the plaintiffs demanding immediate payment. Id. at 448. After the purchasers filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiffs learned from another lawyer that there was a problem with their security interest. Id. The plaintiffs called the defendant and alleged that he had committed malpractice. Id. The defendant discussed the matter with the plaintiffs' new lawyer and performed legal research on the issue. Id. The Court held that the plaintiffs' malpractice claim was not time-barred by the limitations period because the legal work performed by the defendant constituted continuing representation regarding the 1986 sale. Id. at 451.