Davis v. Monahan
2002 WL 31477296, 832 So. 2d 708 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The delayed discovery doctrine, which postpones the accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, applies only to the specific causes of action enumerated by the Florida Legislature, such as fraud, professional malpractice, and products liability. The doctrine does not apply as a general common law principle to torts not specified by statute, like conversion or breach of fiduciary duty.
Facts:
- Helen Monahan, an elderly woman with senile dementia, entrusted her financial affairs to her sister, Betty Kish, and her niece, Elizabeth Davis, after her husband died.
- Kish and Davis wrongfully appropriated approximately $587,267 of Monahan's assets, including cash, stocks, bonds, and various payments.
- The majority of the wrongful financial transactions occurred between 1990 and 1992.
- In October 1995, Monahan first discovered wrongdoing when she learned that Davis had wrongfully attempted to transfer partial title to a condominium Monahan owned in Florida.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen Monahan filed a lawsuit in the trial court against her niece, Elizabeth Davis, and her sister, Betty Kish, for misappropriation of assets. The operative pleading was the fifth amended complaint, filed on April 15, 1998.
- The trial court granted partial final summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Monahan's case against Davis and barring recovery against Kish for tortious acts that occurred before 1994, on the grounds that the claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
- Monahan, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the 'delayed discovery' doctrine applied to bring Monahan's claims within the statute of limitations.
- Davis, as the petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction based on an express and direct conflict between the Fourth District's decision and decisions from other Florida appellate districts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law delayed discovery doctrine apply to toll the statute of limitations for causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, which are not specifically enumerated in Florida's statutes of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
No, the delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to toll the statute of limitations for these causes of action. The Florida Legislature has explicitly provided for delayed discovery in specific instances, such as fraud, products liability, professional malpractice, and intentional torts based on abuse. The causes of action alleged by Monahan—breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment—are not included in this statutory list. The court's prior application of the doctrine in Hearndon v. Graham was a narrow exception for childhood sexual abuse cases, justified by the unique nature of the tort where the abuser's actions directly cause the plaintiff's delayed discovery. To extend the doctrine to the torts in this case would require the Court to rewrite the statute, which is the province of the Legislature. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run when the wrongful acts occurred, not when Monahan discovered them.
Concurring - Lewis, J.
Concurred in result only, without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of strict statutory construction regarding statutes of limitations in Florida, significantly curtailing judicial expansion of the delayed discovery doctrine. It clarifies that the court's previous holding in Hearndon was a narrow, fact-specific exception and not a broad grant of authority for courts to apply the doctrine to any tort where discovery is delayed. The ruling reinforces legislative supremacy in setting limitations periods and their exceptions, creating a bright-line rule that provides certainty for potential litigants. Consequently, for any cause of action not explicitly granted a discovery rule by statute, the limitations period begins to run at the time of the injury, regardless of the plaintiff's awareness, potentially barring claims in cases of concealed wrongdoing within fiduciary relationships.
