Ellison v. Fry

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed jury verdicts awarding damages to Mary Ellison, David Fry, and Susan Sleeper in a dispute concerning allegedly fraudulent transfers of family property and assets. The Court held that the fraud-based claims were barred by Missouri’s fifteen-year maximum limitations period under section 516.120(5), notwithstanding alleged concealment. It also held that the trial court improperly substituted J.D. Fry’s widow as trustee of his trust rather than substituting a court-appointed personal representative after Fry’s death.

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; therefore, no fraud claim may be brought more than fifteen years after the fraud occurred.
2. Neither section 516.280 nor the common law tolls accrual of a fraud claim beyond the fifteen-year maximum imposed by section 516.120(5). Cases stating otherwise should no longer be followed.
3. A trustee may not be substituted for a deceased defendant in property-related claims that survive death; the required substitute is a personal representative appointed by the probate division.
4. The trial court properly directed a verdict on Arthur's claims because the executed release was presumptively valid, expressly covered known and unknown claims, and Arthur failed to prove invalidity.
5. Mary's election to pursue monetary damages precluded her from later pursuing the inconsistent remedy of delivery of specific personal property.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Susan and David's claims based on alleged fraud concerning the 1990 deeds and wills were barred by Missouri's fraud statute of limitations.
2. Whether fraudulent concealment can toll the maximum limitations period for a fraud claim under section 516.120(5).
3. Whether a trustee may be substituted for a deceased defendant in property-related tort claims when no personal representative has been appointed.
4. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Arthur's claims based on his release agreement.
5. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for Fry Grain Enterprises and Delbert.
6. Whether Mary was entitled to obtain specific personal property after electing to pursue monetary damages.
7. Whether punitive damages could be submitted after the underlying damage judgments were reversed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded