Fulton v. Fulton
106 A.3d 127
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- This is an appeal from a 2014 order dismissing an equity action as barred by laches.
- Decedent Fern O. Fulton died in 2008; her son Donald J. Fulton had a durable power of attorney starting in 1999.
- Between 2000 and 2002, Donald conveyed several Decedent-owned parcels to himself and other Fulton family members for nominal consideration.
- In 2003, Decedent (through counsel) filed a legal action against Donald seeking damages for the conveyances; no request to set aside transfers was made.
- Decedent died in 2008, Marvin W. Fulton (executor) died in 2009, and Tillie F. Fulton was appointed Administratrix of the Decedent’s estate in 2011; she then filed the instant equity action in 2011.
- The trial court held that an eleven-year delay (roughly 2000–2011) was prejudicial and barred the claims by laches; the court found dead witnesses and substantial upkeep costs as prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party lack of due diligence can bar an equitable action against others | Administratrix: delay by Decedent/Marvin should not be imputed to Administratrix | Appellees: laches can be based on Decedent’s/Executor’s delay | Yes, laches barred the claim (imputing Decedent/Marvin’s delay to Administratrix). |
| Whether prejudice must be shown to sustain laches | Administratrix: prejudice from delay was not shown by Administratrix’s own actions | Appellees: prejudice shown by lost witnesses and upkeep/altered positions | Yes, prejudice shown; laches barred the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1988) (delay and lack of diligence support laches when appropriate facts exist)
- Estate of Scharlach, 809 A.2d 376 (Pa. Super. 2002) (factors for determining laches; factual inquiry)
- Kern v. Kern, 892 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prejudice may arise from dead witnesses and obscured facts)
- Stilp v. Hafer, 718 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1998) (prejudice and deceased witnesses support laches)
- Wallace's Estate, 149 A.473 (Pa. 1930) (illustrative prejudice due to death/obscured facts)
- In re Wallace’s Estate, 299 Pa. 333 (1930) (prejudice due to time and lack of witnesses)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Baldwin v. Richard, 751 A.2d 647 (Pa. 2000) (prejudice evidence required to sustain laches)
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995) (la ches as equitable defense; factual underpinnings)
- Taylor v. Coggins, 90 A. 633 (Pa. 1914) (reasonable diligence standard for discovery)
- Dorsch v. Jenkins, 365 A.2d 861 (Pa. Super. 1976) (laches as a factual defense)