Howe v. Palmer
80 Mass.App.Ct. 736 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations for a claim of undue influence is tolled as long as the influence persists and prevents the victim from knowing, or reasonably discovering, that they have been harmed by the perpetrator's conduct.
Facts:
- Virgil D. Howe, a man with severe dyslexia and slow mental processing, owned a farm he inherited from his mother.
- In the mid-1990s, Ronald and Jeanette Palmer befriended Howe, and Ronald Palmer became his only friend. In 1999, the Palmers moved into Howe's home.
- Ronald Palmer began to intimidate Howe, pressuring him about cleaning the property and forcing him to part with personal items.
- Palmer convinced Howe he owed a debt of $20,000-$25,000 for the cleanup work and that the only way to settle it was to convey a fifty percent interest in the farm.
- On March 7, 2000, under feelings of fear and intimidation and believing he had no other option, Howe signed a deed giving the Palmers a fifty percent interest in his property.
- The Palmers established a ministry on the farm, isolated Howe from his prior pastor, subjected him to 'counseling' to ensure his submission, and told him he had the attributes of 'Satan'.
- Palmer's campaign of psychological abuse and control over Howe continued relentlessly for several years.
- On July 16, 2005, Howe finally left his farm and moved into a camper on a neighboring property to escape the situation.
Procedural Posture:
- Virgil D. Howe filed a complaint against Ronald F. Palmer and Jeanette M. Palmer in a trial court.
- The suit sought rescission of a deed on the grounds of undue influence and damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Howe, finding the deed was a product of undue influence and that the Palmers had intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
- In response to special questions, the jury found that Howe neither knew nor reasonably should have known he had been harmed prior to March 1, 2003, making his suit timely.
- The trial court entered a judgment rescinding the deed and awarding Howe $60,000 in damages.
- The Palmers' motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied by the trial court.
- The Palmers (appellants) appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 discovery rule toll the statute of limitations for an undue influence claim for as long as the undue influence itself prevents the victim from knowing or reasonably discovering that they have been harmed?
Opinions:
Majority - Trainor, J.
Yes, the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations for an undue influence claim as long as the influence itself prevents the victim from reasonably discovering the harm. Undue influence destroys the victim's free will, making their actions contrary to their true desires. The very nature of this coercion can prevent the victim from appreciating that they have been harmed or understanding who caused the harm. The statute of limitations does not begin to run until the undue influence has ceased and the victim is able to perceive the injury. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding that Palmer's 'concerted, comprehensive, and relentless campaign to overpower [Howe's] will' through years of psychological abuse was extreme and outrageous.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the discovery rule to torts involving psychological coercion like undue influence. It establishes that the statute of limitations does not accrue while the victim is still under the perpetrator's control and psychologically unable to recognize the harm. This provides crucial protection for vulnerable individuals, ensuring that a wrongdoer cannot escape liability by maintaining control over their victim for a period longer than the statutory limit. The ruling sets a precedent that the 'reasonableness' of discovering harm must be judged from the perspective of a person subjected to the specific coercive conduct, not a detached observer.
Unlock the full brief for Howe v. Palmer