VERONICA BARLEY VS. ARNELL D. BARLEYÂ (L-6976-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4965-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Veronica Barley sued stepsister Arnell D. Barley for injuries allegedly sustained in a physical altercation on April 5, 2013; complaint was filed April 6, 2015 (last day of the two-year statute of limitations fell on a Sunday).
- Arnell filed a first responsive pleading asserting a germane counterclaim for injuries she claims resulted from the same incident.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations, and the Law Division granted the motion.
- Arnell moved for reconsideration; the court denied relief, concluding relation-back and equitable tolling did not save the counterclaim.
- Arnell appealed; the Appellate Division reviewed de novo whether relation-back or tolling could preserve a germane counterclaim asserted in a first responsive pleading filed after the limitations period expired.
- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, concluding that when (1) the plaintiff files on the last day of the limitations period and (2) the plaintiff’s claim is still pending, a germane counterclaim in the first responsive pleading can be saved by relation-back under Rule 4:9-3 or by the tolling rationale articulated in Molnar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a counterclaim filed in a first responsive pleading after the SOL expired is barred | The counterclaim is time-barred; relation-back/tolling do not apply | A germane counterclaim asserted in the first responsive pleading should relate back or be tolled because plaintiff filed on the last day of the SOL and the claims arise from the same transaction | Reversed: relation-back or the tolling rationale can save a germane counterclaim under these facts |
| Whether Rule 4:9-3 relation-back applies when plaintiff’s claim is still pending but SOL has run for the counterclaim | Relation-back inapplicable to defendant’s late counterclaim | Relation-back should apply because the counterclaim arises from the same transaction and plaintiff’s suit was pending | Court held relation-back or tolling may apply when plaintiff’s suit remains pending and counterclaim is germane |
| Whether equitable tolling prevents SOL bar to a germane counterclaim | Tolling not warranted here | Filing of plaintiff’s timely complaint tolls limitations for a compulsory/germane counterclaim, preventing plaintiff from gaming the SOL | Court endorsed tolling rationale where plaintiff filed on last day and defendant had no opportunity to file earlier |
| Whether barring the counterclaim furthers SOL purposes (repose, preventing stale claims) | Applying SOL promotes repose and prevents stale claims | Bar would be unfair and not serve SOL purposes because claims are transactionally linked and not stale | Court found barring the germane counterclaim would not serve SOL objectives under these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Molnar v. Hedden, 138 N.J. 96 (N.J. 1994) (Supreme Court discussed relation-back and tolling questions for untimely counterclaims and left open whether a counterclaim filed while plaintiff’s claim remained ‘alive’ could be saved)
- Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 2011) (standard of plenary review for Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal)
- Mountain Hill, LLC v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 403 N.J. Super. 146 (App. Div. 2008) (review of legal issues de novo)