Adelizzi v. Stratton
2010 WY 148
| Wyo. | 2010Background
- Adelizzis hired McGill and Stratton as buyer's agent and broker on April 8, 2006 for a June 1, 2006 house closing.
- The house previously flooded in 2001, 2003, and 2005; flooding recurred in April 2007 and August 2007.
- Adelizzis learned the house was frequently flooded during the April 1-2, 2007 incident and incurred remediation costs.
- Suit was filed September 24, 2007, initially against Lockard, Rowe, and Home Access; McGill/Stratton were added in an amended complaint filed January 12, 2009.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the two-year limit began June 1, 2006, and expired June 1, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the limitation period begin under §1-3-107(a)? | Adelizzis argue discovery-based timing may apply. | McGill/Stratton contend period runs from the act date, June 1, 2006. | Begins June 1, 2006; statute unambiguous. |
| Do the discovery-exception clauses apply here? | Adelizzis contend exceptions apply due to late discovery. | McGill/Stratton argue discovery was not reasonably delayed and notice existed. | No exceptions apply; discovery not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assocs., Inc., 208 P.3d 57 (Wy. 2009) (statute §1-3-107 ambiguity resolved; act date governs)
- Boller v. Western Law Assocs., P.C., 828 P.2d 1184 (Wy. 1992) (discovery for limitations; notice concept)
- Mills v. Garlow, 768 P.2d 554 (Wy. 1989) (discovery rule concept in limitations)
- Hiltz v. Robert W. Horn, P.C., 910 P.2d 566 (Wy. 1996) (inquiry notice; when reasonable person should know)