Medhin v. Hailu
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 498
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Medhin served as Hailu's broker for selling real property beginning in 2001 and sought a $13,500 commission.
- Hailu disputed entitlement to the commission and refused to pay; an escrow was created to cover possible claims but Medhin was not a party to it.
- In April 2004, Medhin's attorney threatened to sue to collect the commission; the escrow agent was instructed to release funds only upon written direction or disposition of commission status.
- Over four years later, Hailu filed suit for declaratory judgment that the escrowed funds belonged to him.
- Medhin answered by asserting the escrowed funds were his; he did not respond to summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the trial court granted summary judgment for Hailu.
- On appeal, Medhin argues the escrow delayed accrual or tolled the limitations period, or that the funds were presumptively his
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did accrual occur when Hailu refused to pay the commission? | Medhin contends accrual did not occur until judgment, given escrow. | Hailu argues accrual occurred when Medhin knew of injury and refusal to pay. | Accrual occurred when injury was known; later suit barred by 3-year limit. |
| Does escrow status toll or delay accrual of contract claims? | Escrow prevented injury from accruing until funds disbursed. | Escrow alone does not toll accrual; notice of nonpayment suffices. | Escrow did not toll; accrual occurred when no payment was guaranteed. |
| Is Medhin barred by notice of nonpayment despite escrow? | Medhin had knowledge of nonpayment and could sue within 3 years. | Escrow would have delayed actions; he relied on escrow status. | Notice of nonpayment triggered accrual; claim untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- News World Communications, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 2005) (accrual when party is definitively told they will not be paid)
- Pardue v. Center City Consortium Sch. of Archdiocese of Wash., Inc., 875 A.2d 669 (D.C. 2005) (notice of nonpayment triggers accrual before suit)
- Bembery v. District of Columbia, 758 A.2d 518 (D.C. 2000) (accrual begins when insured stops receiving benefit or payment)
- EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Assocs. II, L.P., 940 A.2d 996 (D.C. 2008) (accrual for contract actions occurs when breach occurs)
- Brin v. S.E.W. Investors, 902 A.2d 784 (D.C. 2006) (accrual depends on notice of injury and its cause)
- Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Grp., Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (D.C. 2003) (accrual depends on notice or inquiry notice)
- Coleman Mgmt. v. Meyer, 304 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (escrow timing can delay accrual if parties expect payment)
- Bailey v. Greenberg, 516 A.2d 934 (D.C. 1986) (lulling representations may affect accrual)
- Jones v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 621 A.2d 845 (D.C. 1993) (distinguishes lulling and accrual rules)
- Farris v. Compton, 652 A.2d 49 (D.C. 1994) (statutes of limitation purpose and repose)