Goodman v. Goodman
907 P.2d 290, 128 Wash. 2d 366, 1995 Wash. LEXIS 251 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations for an action on an express trust begins to run when the trustee repudiates the trust. When the evidence regarding the timing of this repudiation is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the question of when the statute of limitations began is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the judge.
Facts:
- Before his death, Clive Goodman, who was seriously ill, gave his mother, Gladys Goodman, a general power of attorney.
- About a year before his death in 1983, Clive transferred his major asset, a tavern named Ozzie's East Tavern, to Gladys.
- Gladys sold the tavern on an installment contract in 1982 for $70,000 and deposited the proceeds into her own bank account.
- Shortly after Clive's funeral in 1983, Gladys told Shirley Golden, the mother of Clive's children, that there was no will but she would give the children Clive's money when they were old and responsible enough to manage it.
- Shirley relayed this information to the children, who trusted Gladys to hold the property for them.
- In 1991, eight years after Clive's death, his son Scott, then 25 years old, asked Gladys for money from the sale of the tavern and other assets for the first time.
- Gladys refused Scott's request, stating that she had taken care of Clive and felt she deserved the money.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Goodman, as personal representative of his father's estate, sued his grandmother, Gladys Goodman, in a state trial court in 1991.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Gladys held the property in trust for the children and awarded them damages of $60,000, minus an $11,000 offset for Gladys.
- After the verdict, Gladys filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing the children's lawsuit was filed after the three-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The trial court judge granted Gladys's motion for JNOV, setting aside the jury's verdict.
- Scott Goodman (appellant) appealed the JNOV to the state's intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the suit was time-barred.
- Scott Goodman (petitioner) then appealed to the state's highest court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 a trial court err by granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the grounds that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations when the evidence regarding when the cause of action accrued is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by granting a JNOV on statute of limitations grounds when the evidence about when the claim accrued presents a question of fact. The court reasoned that the arrangement constituted an express trust, for which the statute of limitations begins to run only upon repudiation by the trustee. A repudiation must be a plain, strong, and unequivocal denial of the trust. Here, the evidence was susceptible to two reasonable interpretations regarding the timing of repudiation: 1) it occurred as each child turned 18 and received nothing, or 2) it occurred in 1991 when Gladys explicitly denied the trust and claimed the property as her own. Because the timing of the repudiation was not susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation, it was a question of fact for the jury, and granting a JNOV was improper as it required viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (the children).
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high standard for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and clarifies the distinction between questions of law for a judge and questions of fact for a jury. By holding that the accrual of a statute of limitations claim is a jury question when the facts are ambiguous, the court protects the jury's role as the primary fact-finder. This precedent is significant in trust litigation, as it establishes that the 'repudiation' of an express trust, which triggers the statute of limitations, is a fact-intensive inquiry that a judge cannot resolve as a matter of law if reasonable minds could differ on its timing. It ensures that beneficiaries are not easily time-barred when a trustee's actions are equivocal.
