Ames v. Ames
2:13-cv-00405
E.D. Wash.Nov 30, 2016Background
- Wesley Ames (plaintiff) sued his siblings Randall and Darleen Ames (defendants) for breach of a loan agreement and related claims (California law) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Washington law); defendants asserted counterclaims but did not pursue them at trial.
- The loan arose circa 1991 (two $10,000 disbursements in 2001 are in the record); parties exchanged emails and treated those communications as sufficient, but no formal written contract was executed.
- The parties agreed repayment timing was flexible; plaintiff proffered at trial that defendants were able to repay by 2006, though oral promises about repayment were made later.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants later denied personal liability and engaged in an extended campaign to alienate plaintiff from their parents, causing emotional harm.
- After a bench trial, the court admitted plaintiff’s exhibits, heard proffers, and dismissed all plaintiff claims and defendants’ counterclaims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract – statute of limitations | Ames argues loan obligation remained enforceable and repayment promises tolled or revived claim | Defendants contend no writing fixes repayment time; repayment was conditional and the action is time-barred | Court: Claim time-barred under California statutes; accrued by 2006 at latest; breach claim dismissed |
| Unjust enrichment / quasi-contract | Ames seeks restitution despite an express agreement | Defendants: an express contract existed, so quasi-contract is unavailable | Court: Where an express contract exists (even if stale), unjust enrichment unavailable; claim dismissed |
| Conversion (of funds) | Ames alleges defendants wrongfully retained loaned money and denied obligation | Defendants: nonpayment is a contract/debt issue, not conversion | Court: Money here not specifically identified as distinct chattel; mere failure to pay is not conversion; claim dismissed |
| Fraud (fraudulent inducement) | Ames contends defendants intended at formation not to repay (fraud in inducement) | Defendants: evidence shows willingness to repay until years after loan; no false statements at formation | Court: Plaintiff’s own proffers indicate intent changed post-formation; no fraudulent inducement proved; claim dismissed |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (alienation) | Ames claims defendants waged a campaign to alienate him from parents causing severe distress | Defendants: deny actionable outrageous conduct; legal barrier to adult-child alienation claim | Court: Washington law protects minor-child alienation claims but not adult-child; tort cannot be used to revive barred alienation causes; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neil v. Magner, 22 P. 876 (Cal. 1889) (statute of limitations for demand loans runs from loan date)
- Van Buskirk v. Kuhns, 129 P. 587 (Cal. 1913) (accrual deferred when repayment conditioned on debtor ability to pay)
- Paracor Finance, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.) (unjust enrichment unavailable where express contract governs)
- Baxter v. King, 253 P. 172 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) (money not identified as specific thing cannot support conversion)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 981 (Cal. 1996) (elements of fraud require misrepresentation, scienter, intent, reliance, damage)
- Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp., 926 P.2d 1061 (Cal. 1996) (distinguishes fraud in execution and fraud in inducement)
- Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wash.2d 52 (Wash. 1975) (recognizing tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Wyman v. Wallace, 94 Wash.2d 99 (Wash. 1980) (limitations on alienation-of-affection claims; policy against expanding such claims)
- Strode v. Gleason, 9 Wash.App. 13 (Wash. Ct. App.) (parent may recover for malicious alienation of a minor child's affections)