McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC.
228 Ariz. 262
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- McBride alleged tolling and equitable estoppel to avoid a statute of limitations defense by KAI; KAI defended under ARS 12-541.
- The case proceeded to a bifurcated trial: first, tolling/advisory issues; second, merits if tolling prevailed.
- A jury found a tolling agreement existed and issued advisory findings supporting equitable estoppel; the court rejected the advisory findings.
- The court granted KAI’s Renewed JMOL on tolling and conditionally granted a new trial on that issue.
- On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Renewed JMOL, affirmed the new-trial order, and affirmed the equitable-estoppel ruling.
- The matter was remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Renewed JMOL on tolling was proper | McBride argues there was sufficient jury-worthy evidence of a tolling agreement. | KAI contends the evidence failed to show a tolling agreement as a matter of law. | No; Renewed JMOL reversed; evidence supported tolling; jury verdict legitimate. |
| Whether the court properly granted a new trial on tolling | McBride contends the new trial was improper and the verdict should stand. | KAI contends the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and warranted a new trial. | Yes; the court’s discretionary new-trial ruling affirmed. |
| Equitable estoppel viability | McBride argues KAI should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations. | KAI argues there was no inducement or reliable basis to forbear timely filing. | Affirmed; court’s factual findings supported no equitable estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 250 P.3d 1188 (Ariz. 2011) (sufficiency of evidence reviewed de novo in criminal context; appellate standard de novo for legal sufficiency)
- Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159, 579 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. 1978) (trial court may weigh credibility on new-trial motions; 'thirteenth juror' concept)
- Tubbs v. Tubbs, 155 Ariz. 533, 747 P.2d 1232 (Ariz. 1987) (new-trial standard; credibility weighed by trial court; abuse of discretion standard on appeal for new-trial rulings)
- Peak v. Acuna, 203 Ariz. 83, 50 P.3d 833 (Ariz. 2002) (recognizes trial court as 'thirteenth juror' on new-trial motions; broad discretion)
- Nolde v. Frankie, 192 Ariz. 276, 964 P.2d 477 (Ariz. 1998) (equitable estoppel analysis for inducement to forbear filing suit; four-part test)
- Kelley v. Robison, 121 Ariz. 229, 589 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1979) (mere settlement negotiations alone do not estop statute-of-limitations defense)
- Certainteed Corp. v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 158 Ariz. 273, 762 P.2d 560 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988) (equitable estoppel principles applied to tolling)