Monahan v. Davis
| Decision Date | 28 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-1982.,4D00-1982. |
| Citation | 781 So.2d 436 |
| Parties | Helen K. MONAHAN, Appellant, v. Elizabeth L. DAVIS, Mary Jo Miles, Patricia Taylor, Teresa McCullough, Betty Kish, individually and as Trustee of the Betty Kish Revocable Trust, B & L Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Gregory Evans, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Amy D. Shield of Amy D. Shield, P.A., Boca Raton, and Law Office of Barry A. Eisenson, Coconut Creek, for appellant.
Gregg W. McClosky, and David J. Pascuzzi of Mattlin & McClosky, Boca Raton, for Appellee-Elizabeth L. Davis.
Helen Monahan appeals the trial court's order granting a partial final summary judgment, dismissing with prejudice her case against appellee, Elizabeth Davis, and barring recovery against appellee, Betty Kish, for any wrongdoing that occurred prior to 1994. The court based its ruling on the statute of limitations. We reverse, because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the "delayed discovery" doctrine applies to bring Monahan's causes of action within the statute of limitations.
The salient facts may be briefly stated. Helen Monahan is an elderly woman who suffers from senile dementia. Her niece, Barbara Sadler, was appointed her guardian in February, 1999. Beginning in 1997, Monahan filed suits against various family members concerning their misappropriation of her financial assets. In April, 1998, the court entered a final judgment against three nieces to quiet title to a condominium.
Monahan's fifth amended complaint contained six counts seeking damages from her sister Betty Kish and her niece Elizabeth Davis. The counts included breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment, arising from the wrongful taking of cash, stocks, bonds, interest, dividends, and pension and social security payments. After her husband died, Monahan placed her financial affairs in the hands of Kish and Davis. The complaint estimated that Kish and Davis wrongfully appropriated $587,267 of Monahan's assets. A paragraph of the complaint asserted that the statute of limitations did not bar the action because Monahan did not find out about the misappropriations until October, 1995, when she first discovered that Davis had wrongfully attempted to transfer partial title to the Florida condominium.
Appellees argue that the delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to the causes of action here at issue. They cite Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), to support their contention that the doctrine is limited by section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (2000), to causes of action for products liability and fraud. This narrow view of the delayed discovery doctrine is at odds with the supreme court's application of it in Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla.2000).
In Hearndon, the supreme court applied the doctrine to intentional torts arising from childhood sexual abuse of the plaintiff. Id. at 1182. The statute of limitations for such intentional torts was found at section 95.11(3)(o).1 Such causes of action were different from fraud or products liability, indicating that, contrary to appellees' argument, the doctrine applies to delay the accrual of causes of action other than those mentioned in section 95.031(2). The language in Halkey-Roberts, which is supported by no analysis, is in conflict with the later supreme court decision in Hearndon.
The supreme court's discussion of the delayed discovery doctrine demonstrates that it is rooted in the common law, not created by statute. The court described the doctrine as generally providing "that a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff either knows or reasonably should know of the tortious act giving rise to the cause of action." Hearndon, 767 So.2d at 1184.
(Italics supplied).
Hearndon held that the delayed discovery doctrine, when properly applied, operates to delay the accrual of a cause of action. 767 So.2d at 1184. "[A]ccrual pertains to the existence of a cause of action which then triggers the running of a statute of limitations[.]" Id. at 1185. The court observed that in section 95.051, Florida Statutes (1987), the legislature limited the circumstances when a cause of action might be tolled, or interrupted, after accrual. Hearndon, 767 So.2d at 1185. The court stated that the legislature "did not likewise limit the circumstances under which accrual may have been delayed." Id. (footnote omitted). Hearndon receded from past decisions that applied the delayed discovery doctrine to toll the running of the statute of limitations; the case reaffirmed that the doctrine still applied to delay the accrual of causes of action.
Under Hearndon, the proper reading of section 95.031(2) is that it limits the application of the delayed discovery doctrine in cases of fraud and products liability "under s. 95.11(3)." Nothing limits the application of the doctrine to the causes of action at issue in this case.
In reviewing this case, every possible inference must be viewed in Monahan's favor, and if the slightest doubt exists as to the presence of an issue of fact, then summary judgment was inappropriate. See Albelo v. So. Bell, 682 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
. As we recently wrote:
If the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment.
Quest Air So., Inc. v. Memphis Group, Inc., 733 So.2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citation omitted). In the light most favorable to Monahan, Davis deposited $202,687 of Monahan's money coming from bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and savings bonds into her own account at Sovereign Bank in Maryland. Davis's mother, Kish, opened a joint account with Monahan at Barnett Bank, deposited over $232,560 of Monahan's money, and maintained all control over it. Neither woman has provided an accounting to explain what happened to Monahan's money.
In their depositions, both Davis and Kish stated that Monahan knew about their transfers and expenditures of funds and consented to them. Monahan is now incompetent, suffering from dementia and loss of memory,2 so her ability to refute the appellees' claims is limited. Since she was not present during any of the transfers of funds, Monahan's guardian, Barbara Sadler, cannot testify from her personal knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding the transfers.
Nonetheless, Sadler was able to testify to facts that give rise to the inference that Monahan was unaware of the wrongful appropriation of her money; Monahan can then argue under the delayed discovery doctrine that she neither knew, nor reasonably should have known, of the wrongful acts giving rise to the causes of action stated in the fifth amended complaint. Many of Monahan's statements to Sadler are admissible through Sadler as non-hearsay to show Monahan's state of mind inconsistent with notice or knowledge, see CHARLES W. EHRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 801.6, 632-33 (1999 ed.), or as an exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (2000).
Sadler testified that Monahan complained that Kish and Davis did not give her enough money on a monthly basis to meet her needs. Monahan said that she had to clean Kish's house in order to earn spending money. Kish provided Monahan only $300 a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney
...of action did not accrue until she became aware of facts that would have put a reasonable person on notice. See Monahan v. Davis, 781 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Grossman v. Greenberg, 619 So.2d 406, 408-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). See generally Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla.20......
-
Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
...Hearndon is narrowly limited, that position has been rejected by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals in Monahan v. Davis, 781 So.2d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("Appellees argue that the delayed discovery doctrine does not apply to the causes of action here at issue ... This narro......
-
Ryan v. Lobo De Gonzalez
...the alleged wrongful taking of plaintiff's assets after she had placed her financial affairs in defendants' hands. Monahan v. Davis, 781 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), rev. granted, 799 So.2d 217 (Fla.2001). In reaching its holding, this Court explained: The supreme court adopted the "blame......
-
R.R. v. New Life Cmty. Church of CMA, Inc.
...seeking the delayed discovery rule was "an elderly woman who suffers from senile dementia." Id . at 708 (quoting Monahan v. Davis , 781 So. 2d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ). We noted that the Legislature had enacted delayed accrual rules for specific causes of action and that those causes ......
-
Hearsay exceptions: declarant available
...it indicates the victim’s state of mind, in that she had no knowledge or notice of the misappropriation of her money. Monahan v. Davis , 781 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Everett v. State Statements, which establish a bias on the party of a declarant, are admissible as they circumstantiall......