Scarborough v. Altstatt
140 A.3d 497
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Three sisters filed suit in Dec. 2014 alleging childhood sexual abuse by their father occurring between 1964–1984, asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and negligence.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 20, 2015, arguing all claims were time-barred by the then-applicable three-year statute of limitations; the circuit court granted dismissal on Apr. 22, 2015 and entered an order Apr. 24, 2015.
- Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend; the court issued a confusing June 9/12, 2015 entry (stating “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint is DENIED” but docketing a denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to alter/amend) and then issued an amended/order on July 16, 2015 denying the motion to alter or amend.
- Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the July 16, 2015 final order; defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely based on the June docketing date, which the appellate court denied.
- On the merits the plaintiffs argued dissociative amnesia (referred to as recovered/repressed memories) delayed discovery of actionable harm until 2014 and thus tolled the limitations period under Maryland’s discovery rule; defendant relied on Doe v. Maskell and related precedent holding repression does not trigger the discovery rule.
- The Court of Special Appeals held Maskell remains controlling: memory impairment (including dissociative amnesia) does not activate the discovery rule for childhood sexual-abuse civil claims; thus the complaint was time-barred and dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal: Was the notice of appeal filed within 30 days of a final order? | Appeal was timely from the July 16, 2015 amended order denying the motion to alter or amend. | June 12 docket entry made the order final and started the 30-day clock; appeal filed Aug. 6, 2015 was late. | The June 12 entry was not a clear, final adjudication on the motion to alter/amend; the July 16 order was the final judgment. Appeal was timely; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule: Does dissociative amnesia (recovered memories) toll limitations so the discovery rule applies? | Dissociative amnesia is a recognized, distinct disorder (DSM changes, recent science, expert testimony, and other jurisdictions) and should trigger the discovery rule when memories become accessible. | Maskell holds that repression/recovered memories do not activate the discovery rule; any change must come from the Court of Appeals or legislature. | Under controlling Court of Appeals precedent (Maskell), memory repression/dissociative amnesia does not trigger the discovery rule; the claims were barred under the then-applicable limitations and dismissal was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Maskell, 342 Md. 684 (1996) (discusses recovered/repressed memories and holds repression does not trigger the discovery rule)
- Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981) (formulation of discovery rule: accrual when plaintiff knew or should have known of actionable harm)
- Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699 (1994) (when a trial court decision is an unqualified final disposition for appeal)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 112 Md. App. 390 (1996) (criteria for final judgment: intended final disposition, all claims adjudicated, clerk’s proper record)