Ellison v. Fry

Summary

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed judgments entered for Mary Ellison, David Fry, and Susan Sleeper in a family inheritance dispute involving alleged fraud, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The court held that the fraud-based claims arising from 1990 conduct were barred by Missouri's fifteen-year maximum limitations period and that the trial court improperly substituted the decedent's trustee instead of a court-appointed personal representative. The court affirmed the dismissal of Arthur Fry's claims based on a release and upheld other pretrial dismissals.

Holdings

1. Under section 516.120(5), a fraud claim must be brought within five years after accrual, with discovery deemed to occur no later than ten years after the fraud; consequently, no fraud claim may be brought more than fifteen years after the fraud occurred.
2. Neither section 516.280 nor the common law tolls the accrual of a fraud claim beyond the period specified in section 516.120(5).
3. A deceased defendant in a surviving property-related action must be replaced by a personal representative appointed through the probate division; a trustee of the decedent's trust is not a permissible substitute.
4. The trial court properly directed a verdict against Arthur because the executed release was presumptively valid, expressly released known and unknown claims, and Arthur failed to establish invalidity.
5. Mary could not pursue delivery of specific personal property after electing to pursue and obtaining a money judgment for the same alleged injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Susan Fry's and David Fry's fraud-based unjust-enrichment claims concerning the 1990 deeds and wills were barred by Missouri's fraud statute of limitations.
2. Whether Missouri's general tolling statute or common-law fraudulent-concealment doctrine could extend the maximum limitations period for fraud claims under section 516.120(5).
3. Whether Linda Fry, in her capacity as trustee, could properly be substituted for deceased defendant J.D. Fry in property-related claims without the appointment of a personal representative.
4. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict on Arthur Fry's claims based on his release, claims against Fry Grain Enterprises and Delbert Fry, and the punitive-damages issue.
5. Whether Mary Ellison could pursue specific personal property after electing a money-damages remedy.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded