Mr. Kiviat represented the Appellant in the appeal of a summary judgment stemming from a claim that the Appellant's former counsel filed claims barred by the statute of limitations.  The appellate court adopted Mr. Kiviat's argument that the statute of limitations was tolled while his client was out of state and remanded the case back to the trial court for trial.

 

 

Mr. Kiviat represented the Appellant in the appeal of a summary judgment stemming from a claim that the Appellant's legal malpractice claim against its former counsel was barred by the statute of limitations.  The appellate court adopted Mr. Kiviat argument's that the claim was not untimely because the statute of limitations was tolled up and until the client's former counsel ceased representing the Appellant.  The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court, ruling that the trial court committed error in calculating the statute of limitations.

 

 

Mr. Kiviat represented the Appellee in an appeal of a summary judgment obtained by Mr. Kiviat against the Appellants who had brought an untimely construction defect lawsuit against Mr. Kiviat's client due to the fact that the lawsuit neglected to include both spouses as plaintiffs when the suit was originally filed.  The trial court ruled that because the Appellants, married owners of a single-family residence, did not join their claims as a married couple within the period of limitations, their claims were barred as a matter of law regardless of the husband's initial filing within the limitations period.  The Court of Special Appeals sustained the judgment of the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the Appellants' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

 

 

Mr. Kiviat represented the Appellant in an appeal of a trial court's dismissal of the Appellant's Superior Court lawsuit after the Appellant's former counsel failed to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed the complaint  with thirty days leave to amend.  The Appellant's former counsel claimed that he failed to file an amended complaint because he "thought" the Appellant's settlement offer was "orally" accepted by the Appellee.  The Appellee claimed that it had not accepted the offer and obtained significant attorney's fees from the Appellant. The appellate court, adopted Mr. Kiviat's argument, reversed the dismissal of the underlying action (and award pf attorney's fees to the Appellee) and remanded the case back to the trial court.

 

 

Represented the Appellant in the appeal of a trial court judgment entered against the Appellant relating to an allegation that the Appellant, as an alleged general partner of a limited partnership, personally owed the Appellant on an open book account.  The trial court entered judgment against Appellant despite the fact that the Appellee failed to submit evidence that the Appellant was in fact the general partner of the LP.  On appeal, the appellate court reversed the lower court and remanded the case back to the trial court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPELATE PRACTICE

Courts of Appeal review what transpired in a lower court to determine whether proper procedures were followed and/or the law was properly applied.  Mr. Kiviat can work exclusively on the appeal of a matter handled by another attorney at the trial court level or work collaboratively with a client's trial counsel.