Sykes v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 128 (2014)

Citation: Sykes v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 128 (2014)
Parent Document: Sykes v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 128 (2014)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2014-03-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7304952/sykes-v-rbs-citizens-na/ ↗

Full Text

1,442 chars

In New Hampshire, “ ‘[t]he fraudulent concealment rule states that when facts essential to the cause of action are fraudulently concealed, the statute of limitations is tolled until the plaintiff has discovered such facts or could have done so in the exercise of reasonable diligence.’ ” Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C., 160 N.H. 708, 714, 7 A.3d 1284 (2010) (quoting Bricker v. Putnam, 128 N.H. 162, 165, 512 A.2d 1094 (1986)). Fraudulent concealment “requires something affirmative in nature designed or intended to prevent, and which does prevent, the discovery of facts giving rise to a cause of action-some actual artifice to prevent knowledge of the facts or some representation intended to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry.” Lamprey v. Britton Const., Inc., 163 N.H. 252, 259-60, 37 A.3d 359 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The standard for fraudulent concealment for federal claims in the First Circuit is nearly identical. See, e.g., Rakes v. United States, 442 F.3d 7, 26 (1st Cir.2006) (“The rule governing fraudulent concealment is that ‘the defendant raising the limitations defense must have engaged in fraud or deliberate concealment of material facts relating to his wrongdoing and the plaintiff must have failed to discover these facts within the normal limitations period despite his exercise of due diligence.’”) (quoting Torres Ramirez v. Bermudez Garcia, 898 F.2d 224, 229 (1st Cir.1990)).

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text