743 S.E.2d 860
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Graham hired Welch, Roberts and Amburn, LLP (WRA) in 2005 for accounting/tax services.
- Graham received a New York tax liability notice on July 5, 2005, and paid $4,296.49 via a check to WRA on October 13, 2005.
- WRA invoiced Graham November 28, 2005 for services through October 31, 2005, reflecting a $4,296.49 credit and a remaining balance of $2,359.51.
- Graham paid the remaining balance December 30, 2005, with a directive to post to his account.
- Graham learned in 2008 of a New York levy; he filed this action March 9, 2011, alleging multiple claims against WRA, later contested as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute of limitations begin to run? | Graham relies on conflicting evidence about when he knew or should have known of the claim. | WRA argues the discovery rule began no later than December 30, 2005, when the invoice showed funds applied to services. | Statute began by December 30, 2005; claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- True v. Monteith, 327 S.C. 116 (1997) (discovery rule governing statute of limitations for injury actions)
- Dean v. Ruscon Corp., 321 S.C. 360 (1996) (reasonable diligence standard for discovery of claims)
- Bayle v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 344 S.C. 115 (Ct.App.2001) (objective test for discovery date; not plaintiff's actual knowledge)
- Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 341 S.C. 320 (2000) (jury resolves when conflicting evidence shows discovery date)
- Maher v. Tietex Corp., 331 S.C. 371 (Ct.App.1998) (jury must resolve whether claimant knew or should have known of a claim)
- Santee Portland Cement Co. v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 299 S.C. 269 (1989) (extended discovery rule to certain non-contract actions)
- Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat. Vendors Div. of Unidynamics Corp., 319 S.C. 556 (1995) (modifies application of discovery rule in some contexts)