70 A.3d 447
N.H.2013Background
- Plaintiff Robin Plaisted seeks half of sale proceeds from 10 Nelson Street after alleging ownership via Blue Star Consulting and the defendant; Blue Star allegedly received and held proceeds after the sale.
- In May 2002, Plaisted and LaBrie entered a purchase agreement with Ocwen FSB; LaBrie signed only for Blue Star, a corporation he controlled.
- A July 19, 2002 quitclaim deed listed Blue Star as the sole grantee of the property.
- On August 15, 2002, Blue Star’s president signed a Declaration of Ownership granting Plaisted a 50% interest; Blue Star sold the property on October 15, 2004 and wired proceeds to Blue Star’s benefit.
- Plaisted petitioned in October 2011 for declaration of 1/2 ownership and half the sale proceeds; LaBrie moved to dismiss as time-barred under RSA 508:4.
- The trial court dismissed; on appeal, the court held the action is personal in nature, governed by the 3-year statute RSA 508:4, and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is governed by 20-year vs 3-year statute of limitations | Plaisted argues 20-year limit under RSA 508:2 (ownership-based proceeds) | LaBrie argues 3-year limit under RSA 508:4 (personal action) | Three-year statute applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Shuris governs the proceeds claim as based on ownership | Plaisted relies on Shuris to treat proceeds as tied to ownership and thus 20-year period | LaBrie contends Shuris is inapposite; action is personal | Shuris not controlling; action is personal and time-barred under RSA 508:4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Shuris v. Morgan, 118 N.H.154 (N.H. 1978) (ownership-based proceeds not controlling twenty-year limit here; discussion on limitations)
- Wood v. Greaves, 152 N.H.228 (N.H. 2005) (nature of cause of action determined by substance)
- Perez v. Pike Indus., 153 N.H.158 (N.H. 2005) (discovery rule burden shifting in time-bar analysis)
- Elter-Nodvin v. Nodvin, 163 N.H.678 (N.H. 2012) (accepting alleged facts for purposes of appeal)
- Sutton v. Sutton, 119 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005) (discovery rule referenced in relation to timely claim)
- Herthel v. Barth, 81 P.2d 19 (Kan. 1938) (fraud-based relief and applicable limitations)
- Potter v. Cottrill, 2012 WL 1964921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (illustrative discussion on property claim timing)