GEOFFREY O. HILLS v. ROBERT BERLUTI & Another., 24-P-0620

Geoffrey Hills (plaintiff) filed a tort-based complaint against Robert Berluti and Berluti, McLaughlin & Kutchin (defendants).
The Superior Court dismissed Hills' complaint as untimely, citing expiration of the three-year statute of limitations for torts.
Hills argued the "discovery rule" should extend the limitations period for at least one claim.
On appeal, Hills raised new arguments not previously presented at the trial level, including interpretations of event notice and the relevant statute of limitations.
The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding Hills' arguments meritless or waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations for tort claims	Claims are not time-barred due to discovery rule	All claims are tort-based and time-barred	All claims governed by three-year limit; complaint time-barred
Application of the discovery rule	"Notice" requires knowing injury was caused by defendants	Plaintiff/attorney had notice within limitations	Plaintiff had constructive notice; discovery rule does not save claim
Raising arguments for first time on appeal	New legal/statutory arguments applicable to extend time	Such arguments cannot be raised late	Arguments not raised at trial are waived and not considered on appeal
Rule 60(b) as basis for timeliness of relief	Rule 60(b) allows setting aside judgment with no time limit	Rule 60(b) inapposite to statute of limitations	Rule 60(b) irrelevant to statute of limitations analysis

White v. Peabody Constr. Co., 386 Mass. 121 (1982) (discusses the discovery rule for statute of limitations)
McCarthy v. Slade Assocs., 463 Mass. 181 (2012) (knowledge of attorney imputed to client for notice purposes)
Palmer v. Murphy, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 334 (1997) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
Zora v. State Ethics Comm'n, 415 Mass. 640 (1993) (appellate arguments require legal authority and record citation)