Superior Court Dismisses the Action Because Statue of Limitations for Fraud had Expired

Posted on June 17, 2005 by Jason C. Jowers
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link

Reading Int'l, Inc. v. St. Francis, C.A. No. 02C-10-223 SCD, 2005 WL 1654343 (Del. Super. Ct. June 17, 2005).

The plaintiffs brought an action for fraud, alleging that the value of certain equipment the plaintiffs purchased in 1996 was not as the defendants represented. One of the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. Treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action against the defendant because the statute had expired.

Richard St. Francis, one of the defendants, moved to dismiss based on the argument that 10 Del. C. § 8106's three-year statute of limitations for fraud. Because the alleged fraudulent act took place in 1996, the court determined that the statute of limitations barred the action unless the statute had been tolled. The plaintiff argued the statute was tolled because St. Francis had concealed material facts. However, the evidence indicated that the Plaintiffs' predecessor had been aware of a problem with the valuation of the computers since March 2001. Accordingly, the court determined that the statute of limitations had run, and it dismissed the action against St. Francis.

Authored by:
Jason C. Jowers
302-888-6860
jjowers@morrisjames.com
Tags: ,
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.