Samir M. Shams, plaintiff/counterclaim v. Sona Hassan, defendant/counterclaimant-appellee., 15-1344

Background

In 2003 Shams gave Hassan blank checkbooks and asked her to manage his checking account while he worked overseas; Hassan allegedly wrote checks to herself totaling $269,980.66.
Shams returned to the U.S. in May–June 2006, discovered checks/payments to Hassan, and was told by Hassan the money was invested in real estate and would be returned; Hassan also intermittently gave Shams funds (e.g., $50,000 in 2009).
In 2010 Shams requested return of his remaining funds and was told the money had been spent.
Shams sued July 26, 2011 for breach of oral contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and related claims; jury trial was held in 2015 and returned a verdict for Shams on conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
At trial Hassan requested a jury instruction (or interrogatory) that certain claims were barred by the five‑year statute of limitations under Iowa Code § 614.1(4), asserting accrual (under the discovery rule) occurred in June 2006; the trial court refused the instruction and the jury did not decide the limitation/tolling issues.
The Iowa Court of Appeals held there was substantial evidence supporting Hassan’s statute‑of‑limitations theory and that, because factual disputes (discovery, tolling, estoppel) existed, Hassan was entitled to an instruction or interrogatory on that defense; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Shams)	Defendant's Argument (Hassan)	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing Hassan’s statute‑of‑limitations jury instruction	Shams argues the parties formed a new agreement in June 2006 and claims accrued later (2010), so limitations did not bar suit	Hassan argues accrual (under discovery rule) began in June 2006 when Shams learned checks had been written to her, so claims filed in 2011 were time‑barred	Court held refusal was error: substantial evidence supported Hassan’s limitations theory and factual disputes made it a jury issue; remanded for new trial
When causes of action accrued under the discovery rule	Shams: did not know all elements of injury in 2006 because Hassan misrepresented investment and promised return; accrual occurred when told funds were gone in 2010	Hassan: discovery of checks/payments in 2006 was sufficient to start limitations unless plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence to investigate further	Court: discovery rule applies; whether accrual occurred in 2006 or was tolled by defendant’s misrepresentations is a question of fact for the jury
Sufficiency and form of the proposed instruction	Shams: trial court found evidence supported a later accrual/new agreement and that instruction as drafted was inapplicable	Hassan: proffered instruction correctly raised the five‑year bar beginning June 2006	Court: Hassan’s proposed instruction misstated the discovery rule and thus was incomplete, but she was nonetheless entitled to an accurate instruction or interrogatory on the limitations defense

Key Cases Cited

Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for jury instruction refusals)
Beyer v. Todd, 601 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1999) (court must give requested instruction that correctly states law, applies, and is not elsewhere stated)
Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2009) (parties entitled to jury submission of legal theories supported by pleading and substantial evidence)
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819 (Iowa 2000) (when reviewing requested‑instruction sufficiency, view evidence in light most favorable to party seeking instruction)
Wells v. Enter. Rent‑A‑Car Midwest, 690 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2004) (instructional error requires reversal only if prejudicial)
Franzen v. Deere & Co., 377 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 1985) (discovery rule: limitations begin when injured person discovers or with reasonable care should discover wrongful act)
Hook v. Lippolt, 755 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 2008) (under discovery rule, limitations begin when plaintiff has actual or imputed knowledge of all elements)
Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc. v. Morton Bldgs., Inc., 507 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act produces loss or damage)
Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 2011) (discussion of verdict forms, interrogatories, and allocation of factual questions)
Vertman v. Drayton, 272 N.W. 438 (Iowa 1937) (where concealment, discovery, and diligence are disputed, jury must decide limitations/tolling issues)
Dillon County Sch. Dist. No. Two v. Lewis Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 332 S.E.2d 555 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985) (defendant’s conduct that lulls plaintiff can be a jury question)