Hughes Ex Rel. Estate of Hughes v. Bank of America National Ass'n
697 F. App'x 191
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Phillip Hughes and Joanne Hafter sued Bank of America, alleging causes of action that the district court concluded were time-barred.
- Bank of America moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, asserting the applicable statutes of limitations had expired.
- Plaintiffs sought equitable tolling, alleging facts including fraudulent concealment that would excuse untimely filing.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the claims barred by the limitations periods and that plaintiffs failed to show grounds for equitable tolling.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, examined whether equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment applied, and affirmed the district court without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims were time-barred | Hughes argued statutory periods should be tolled or did not run because of alleged concealment | Bank of America argued statute of limitations expired on the face of the complaint | Held: Claims are time-barred; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Plaintiffs claimed extraordinary circumstances/fraudulent concealment prevented timely filing | Bank argued plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence and no external extraordinary circumstances existed | Held: Equitable tolling not warranted; plaintiffs failed to meet the standard |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolls limitations | Plaintiffs alleged Bank concealed facts forming the basis of their claims | Bank denied concealment and maintained plaintiffs could have discovered claims earlier | Held: Plaintiffs did not demonstrate the elements of fraudulent concealment required to toll the limitations period |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper despite potential defenses | Plaintiffs urged factual disputes precluded dismissal | Bank argued the complaint facially revealed the affirmative defense of limitations | Held: Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper because the complaint plainly showed the statute-of-limitations defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc., 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank, 780 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2015) (accepting factual allegations and drawing inferences for pleadings)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions or bare assertions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must provide more than labels and conclusions)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011) (notice-pleading requirement described)
- Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2011) (dismissal appropriate where complaint reveals meritorious affirmative defense)
- Raplee v. United States, 842 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling must be rare and guarded)
- Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 71 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 1995) (elements required to show fraudulent concealment for tolling)