 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbit v. Mills8/22/2005
the party to file outside the statute of limitations, thereby, making the application of the statute of limitations unjust. Sparks, 771 S.W.2d at 432.
In Sparks, the plaintiff sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency relating to work performed at her house pursuant to the Emergency Rehabilitation Program. The defendants argued that the statute of limitations had expired, which the trial court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, the plaintiff raised the argument that the defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. Sparks, 771 S.W.2d at 432. The court refused to apply the doctrine because the plaintiff failed to show that she relied on any promise made by the defendants that they were going to satisfy her demands, resulting in the plaintiff's failure to file her claim within the statute of limitations. Sparks, 771 S.W.2d at 433.
As in Sparks, the Rabbitts also failed to show reliance on any promise or action taken by Mills that mislead them into believing that they need not revive their judgment within the ten-year statute of limitations. Mills' continued attempts to avoid payment of the judgment cannot be construed as promises to the Rabbitts that their judgment would be paid. On the contrary, these acts served as notice to the Rabbitts that Mills would actively pursue every avenue in order to avert his responsibilities.
The court's finding that Mills' misconduct was sufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a question of fact, and thus, the Court reviews the finding de novo with a presumption of correctness below. The trial court's finding may not be reversed unless the finding is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d). This Court finds that the application of the equitable estoppel is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence because the Rabbitts failed to rely on any promise or action taken by Mills. Reliance is a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
The court also found that the Rabbitts' petition to revive the judgment was timely regardless of the use of equitable estoppel. In reaching its decision, the court determined that the ten-year statute of limitations commenced to run upon domestication of the Rabbitts' judgment, making the judgment unenforceable after May 12, 2003, unless timely revived. However, the court found that Mills had twice caused the injunction of any activity in the case, once by the filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, and again, by a Motion to Pay Judgment by Installments. The court found that these periods of injunction should be added to the statutory period, thereby, lengthening the time in which to revive the judgment until May 9, 2004. By extending the proper time in which to revive the judgment until May 9, 2004, the court found that the Rabbitts timely filed their petition for writ of scire facias on January 30, 2004.
The trial court relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1- 109, in extending the statutory period, which provides:
28-1-109. Suspension during injunction. When the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction, the time of the continuance of the injunction is not to be counted.
The application of the statute of limitations is a legal issue and accordingly, this Court reviews the trial court's decision de novo, with no presumption of correctness on the findings. Memphis Publ. Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Service, 87 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Tenn.2002); Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., 15 S.W.3d 799, 802-03 (Tenn.2000).
First, the court's reliance on Mills' Chap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|