Potter v. Cottrill
2012 Ohio 2417
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Potter and his wife executed powers of attorney authorizing their daughter Janice as attorney-in-fact.
- In Oct. 2004, Janice allegedly conveyed five Potter parcels to herself and husband and transferred Potter’s stock to Janice.
- Potter asserted five claims: Invalid Transfer of Real Estate and Conflict of Interest (premised on breach of authority/conflict), plus breach of fiduciary duty, stock transfer, and theft-related claims.
- Trial court granted Cottrills summary judgment on the fiduciary breach and theft claims and Potter summary judgment on the real estate and conflict claims.
- On appeal, court held the real estate and conflict claims were barred by a four-year statute of limitations for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, reversing the grant of summary judgment on those two claims and remanding for entry of judgment in Cottrills’ favor.
- Rule: accrual and applicable limitations require treating these as breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims rather than real-property title actions; claims accrued Oct. 22, 2004 and were filed Mar. 23, 2011, outside four-year limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs Potter's first and second claims? | Potter argues these are real-property title actions under 2305.04. | Cottrills argue these are breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims under 2305.09(D). | 2305.09(D) applies; four-year limit governs. |
| Did Potter's claims accrue in 2004, rendering his 2011 suit time-barred? | Accrual follows the wrongful act, not discovery. | Accrual occurred on Oct. 22, 2004; Potter knew of damages then. | Accrual occurred in 2004; suit filed in 2011 was untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 (Ohio 2011) (explains accrual/discovery rules for limitations, including four-year window for certain claims)
- Dodd v. Keybank, 2006-Ohio-93 (8th Dist. 2006) (applies 2305.09(D) to breach of fiduciary duty)
- Lawyers Coop. Publishing Co. v. Muething, 65 Ohio St.3d 273 (1992) (statutory accrual interpretation guidance)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (1984) (statutory limitations and accrual principles)
- Callaway v. Nu-Cor Automotive Corp., 2006-Ohio-1343 (10th Dist. 2006) (protects against recharacterizing claims to fit a different limitations period)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (delayed-damages accrual concept)
- In re Adoption of T.G.B., 2011-Ohio-6772 (4th Dist.) (discusses accrual and de novo interpretation of statutes)