Molnar v. Hedden
649 A.2d 71, 138 N.J. 96, 1994 N.J. LEXIS 1149 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A counterclaim filed after the statute of limitations has expired cannot relate back to the date of the original complaint under Rule 4:9-3 if the plaintiff's original action is no longer pending because it has been settled and dismissed.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1988, an automobile driven by Susan L. Molnar collided with a motorcycle operated by Douglas M. Hedden, injuring both parties and leaving Hedden paralyzed below the waist.
- On May 31, 1990, approximately six weeks before the two-year statute of limitations was set to expire, Molnar filed a complaint against Hedden for her injuries.
- On June 27, 1990, about two and a half weeks before the statute of limitations expired, Hedden filed an answer asserting contributory negligence as a defense but did not include a counterclaim for his own injuries.
- In June 1991, the parties settled Molnar's personal-injury claim for $15,000, the limit of Hedden's insurance coverage.
- On August 16, 1991, after Molnar's insurer confirmed it would not pursue a related claim, Hedden's attorneys forwarded the $15,000 settlement check to Molnar's attorney.
- On November 12, 1991, well after the statute of limitations had run, Hedden's new attorney filed a motion to amend his answer to assert a personal-injury counterclaim against Molnar.
Procedural Posture:
- Molnar sued Hedden for personal injuries in the trial court.
- Hedden's subsequent motion in the trial court to amend his answer to include a counterclaim was denied.
- Hedden, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court, holding that the counterclaim was not barred by the statute of limitations and could relate back.
- Molnar, as petitioner, sought certification from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which was granted.
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 relation-back doctrine of Rule 4:9-3 permit a defendant to file a personal-injury counterclaim after the two-year statute of limitations has expired, when the plaintiff's underlying action has already been settled and is no longer pending?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifford, J.
No. The relation-back doctrine does not apply because a time-barred counterclaim cannot be asserted in an action that is no longer pending. The court reasoned that despite procedural irregularities in the dismissal filings, the substantive reality was that all claims had been extinguished by settlement and payment before Hedden sought to file his counterclaim. The court emphasized that the principal consideration behind statutes of limitations is fairness, which includes providing finality and repose. Because Molnar's claim was fully resolved and no longer active, there was nothing to which Hedden's late counterclaim could relate back. Allowing the counterclaim would undermine the finality of the settlement and the purpose of the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical limitation of the relation-back doctrine under New Jersey court rules. It establishes that the doctrine requires a pending, live controversy for a new claim to relate back to; a settled and effectively dismissed case does not qualify, regardless of technical flaws in dismissal paperwork. The ruling reinforces the importance of statutes of limitations and the finality of settlements, preventing litigants from reviving disputes that all parties considered concluded. For practitioners, it underscores the necessity of asserting any compulsory counterclaims either within the statutory period or, at the very least, before the primary action is terminated.
Unlock the full brief for Molnar v. Hedden