Larry D. Patton v. Shelby County Government
W2016-00970-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- In June 2009 forged quitclaim deeds allegedly conveying 2087 Benton Street were notarized and one was recorded; Plaintiffs Mildred and Larry Patton discovered irregularities by January–June 2010.
- Plaintiffs filed a chancery petition to cancel the forged deed and quiet title in June 2010; the chancery court entered summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on May 1, 2013, declaring the June 23, 2009 deed a forgery and ordering it stricken.
- Plaintiffs (Mildred and Larry) filed a GTLA suit against Shelby County, the Register of Deeds, and two employees on October 8, 2014 alleging negligence and malicious conduct for recording the forged deed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under the GTLA’s one-year statute of limitations; Plaintiffs repeatedly amended pleadings and asserted various tolling/relief theories, including discovery rule, plaintiff disability, equitable estoppel, and relation-back to the 2010 chancery filing.
- The trial court treated the record as supporting summary judgment, held Plaintiffs’ cause accrued no later than May 2013 (and actually by June 2010), and dismissed as time-barred; Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the GTLA statute of limitations begin to run? | Pattons: accrual was later (Oct 2013 or 2014) when Register’s records were updated; discovery rule delays accrual. | Defendants: accrual occurred when Plaintiffs discovered the forgery in 2010 (or at latest May 2013), so 2014 suit was untimely. | Held: accrual occurred no later than May 1, 2013 and in fact by June 2010; suit filed Oct 8, 2014 was time-barred. |
| Was Larry Patton legally disabled from suing before Register updated records? | Larry: could not sue until he had legal estate or until Register complied with the chancery order. | Defendants: forged deed conveyed no title; Larry obtained interest by 2010 deed (effective between parties) and had standing. | Held: Larry had an ownership interest as of 2010 (recorded 2012); he was not disabled from suing; accrual earlier than Oct 2013. |
| Was statute of limitations tolled by Mildred’s incompetence (unsound mind)? | Pattons: Mildred was elderly/mentally incompetent so limitations tolled. | Defendants: record shows Mildred acted competently (reported forgery, executed deed, filed pro se suits), no tolling. | Held: No genuine fact issue of incompetence; tolling not available. |
| Do doctrines of equitable estoppel or relation-back to 2010 chancery suit save the GTLA claim? | Pattons: equitable estoppel or Rule 15.03 relation-back to 2010 filing (or other amendments) should permit the 2014 GTLA claim. | Defendants: these doctrines do not apply to file a new, separate GTLA suit after the limitations period. | Held: Equitable estoppel not raised below (waived); Rule 15.03 does not permit an amended pleading in this suit to relate back to pleadings in a separate, concluded lawsuit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. City of Clarksville, 479 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2015) (GTLA statute of limitations is strictly applied)
- Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. 2010) (burden shifting on statute of limitations and standard for summary judgment review)
- Wyatt v. A-Best Co., Inc., 910 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1995) (when judicial remedy is available and accrual analysis)
- Sutton v. Barnes, 78 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (cause of action under GTLA arises when plaintiff discovers injury)
- Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. 2001) (relation-back doctrine does not permit new lawsuit to piggyback on a different prior complaint)