Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
Keywords: | Statute of limitations; Slander of title |
Jurisdiction: | Kentucky |
Cited Cases: | 910 S.W.2d 237 |
Cited Statutes: | None |
Date: | 11/01/2000 |
Montgomery v. Milam, 910 S.W.2d 237 (Ky. 1995), involves the statute of limitations. All six of the participating justices agreed that Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations controls a slander of title action. 948 S.W.2d at 240. However, they split 3-3 (with Justice Fuqua not participating) on when the statute begins to run. In the lead opinion, Justice Reynolds, supported by Justices Lambert and Wintersheimer, decided that the limitations period began to run in that case on the day the defendant filed the allegedly invalid notice of the mechanic’s lien, regardless of whether the amount of damages was then ascertainable or knowable. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Stephens, joined by Justices Leibson and Stumbo, contended that the court should follow the rule laid down in attorney malpractice cases, that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the damages become fixed and non-speculative, which would be the date that foreclosure proceedings commenced against the property.
[…]
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!