Ames v. Ohle
97 So. 3d 386
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ames hired Ohle for tax/financial planning; Ohle worked for Bank One in Innovative Strategies Group from 1999–2002.
- In 1999 Ames established a Charitable Remainder Unitrust naming Ohle as trustee, funding with several million dollars over time.
- Ames invested $5 million in Carpe Diem Dynamic Fund Linked Warrants; fees and undisclosed transfers related to Carpe Diem and HomER were alleged.
- Ohle directed transfers from the Trust and Misused funds through Carpe Diem, Invested Interest, and other accounts to fund HOMER and related ventures.
- Ames learned of Ohle’s conduct during or after 2003 settlement accounting; she filed suit in January 2011, after a prior federal action; Bank One and related defendants raised prescription and related exceptions.
- The district court sustained prescription; on appeal, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for fraud claim only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescriptive periods applicable to multiple claims | Ames argues several claims have longer prescriptive periods | Bank One contends claims are prescribed based on known facts | Some claims prescribed; fraud claim survives ten-year prescriptive period |
| Accrual and start of prescription | Constructive notice in 2003 triggered accrual | Accrual based on earlier notice of Bank One/Ohle’s conduct | Prescription began in 2003 for most claims; one-year/ten-year framework applies to specific claims |
| Contra non valentem applicability | Defendant concealed/obfuscated facts delaying discovery | No exceptional concealment or reasonable reliance to toll prescription | Contra non valentem not applicable; fraud claim remains ten-year prescriptive period |
| Conspiracy claim basis and prescriptive period | Civil conspiracy grounded in fraud/misrepresentation | Conspiracy itself not actionable; surrounding tort governs prescription | Conspiracy prescribes with underlying fraud/misrepresentation (ten years) as applicable to fraud claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Dela Vergne v. Dela Vergne, 745 So.2d 1271 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1999) (discusses prescription periods for fraud vs negligence actions)
- Roger v. Dufrene, 613 So.2d 947 (La.1993) (nonfeasance vs misfeasance governs contract/tort prescription)
- Dominion Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. Waters, 972 So.2d 350 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (contra non valentem applicability to concealment claims)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 620 So.2d 1154 (La.1993) (reasonableness of plaintiff's actions controls when prescription begins)
- Trust for Melba Margaret Schwegmann v. Schwegmann, 51 So.3d 737 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (strict construal of prescription against claims; burden on plaintiff)