Statute of repose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil Procedure
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Doctrines of civil procedure Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Proper venue Change of venue Forum non conveniens Removal jurisdiction Pleadings and motions Service of process Process serving laws Complaint Cause of action Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Demurrer Answer Affirmative defense Reply Counterclaim Cross-claim Joinder Interpleader Pre-trial procedure Discovery Interrogatories Depositions Resolution Without Trial Default judgment Summary judgment Voluntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Settlement Trial Parties Plaintiff Defendant Jury Voir dire Burden of proof Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) Renewed JMOL (JNOV) Motion to set aside judgment New trial Remedy Injunction Damages Attorneys' fees American rule English rule Declaratory judgment Appeal Mandamus Certiorari
view /edit this template

A statute of repose (sometimes called a nonclaim statute), like a statute of limitation, is a statute that cuts off certain legal rights if they are not acted on by a certain deadline.

Contents 1 Statutes of repose and statutes of limitation 2 In products liability 3 In estate administration 4 References

[edit] Statutes of repose and statutes of limitation

However, most courts hold that statutes of repose are a broader category. They differ from statutes of limitation, in that the deadlines imposed by statutes of repose are enforced much more strictly. The operation of statutes of limitation can be avoided or tolled by a number of equitable factors, such as the minority of the injured party, or attempts by a tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility. Some statutes of limitation only begin to run when the injury complained of is discovered. All statutes of limitation are statutes of repose, but some statutes of repose operate differently from statutes of limitation.

A statute of repose may impose a much stricter deadline than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose, in contrast to a statute of limitations, "is designed to bar actions after a specified period of time has run from the occurrence of some event other than the injury which gave rise to the claim."^[1]

Statutes of repose exist in a number of contexts. Some states have them in the context of products liability law. Probate law is another area where statutes of repose are found in many jurisdictions.

[edit] In products liability

As such, a statute of repose may bar a remedy even before a cause of action arises. For example, in a products liability action, a statute of limitation may apply to bar lawsuits a set number of years after the product causes an injury; but a statute of repose may also apply, barring an action after a certain number of years from the date when the product was initially delivered.^[2] If a defective product sold to a consumer more than ten years ago injures someone, the statute of repose operates to bar the claim even if the statute of limitation does not.

Because statutes of repose, unlike statutes of limitation, impose an absolute bar to actions against manufacturers, usually after the goods are delivered or installed rather than the date when they cause harm, they are strongly favoured by industry trade groups and opposed by consumer organizations and tort lawyers. In the United States, statutes of repose are a part of legislative proposals for "tort reform".

[edit] In estate administration

Some states have statutes of repose in the administration of decedent's estates, requiring actions such as will contests^[3] or claims that the estate owed money to a creditor^[4] are barred by statutes of repose unless brought within the prescribed period under which the claimant or creditor may act.^[5].

These statutes, the original nonclaim statutes, are less controversial. Public policy favours the distribution of estates to the heirs with all deliberate speed; after this, the estate is empty. Creditors of the decedent who do not act upon receiving actual or constructive notice that an estate has been opened have their claims cut off, and cannot disturb the peaceful possession of the distributed assets by the heirs.

[edit] References

1. ^ Gray v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 821 N.E.2d 431 (Ind.Ct.App 2005); Kissel v. Rosenbaum, 579 N.E.2d 1322, 1326 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).
2. ^ See, for example, Ind. Code 34-20-3-1
3. ^ In re Estate of Brown, 587 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)
4. ^ In re Estate of McNabb, 744 N.E.2d 569, (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)
5. ^ For example, Ind. Code 29-1-14-1