At bar, four years passed between the time Fleet paid the note and the filing of this complaint. It is not clear, however, when Hunt became aware of the injury occasioned by the combination of Clark's forgery and Fleet's payment. Although she questioned her attorney about the status of the money, such questioning does not necessarily demonstrate knowledge of injury. It may well be possible that Hunt, in continuing to trust Clark to handle her money, was acting reasonably and ought not to be charged with knowledge of his perfidy. Accordingly, to determine when the statute of limitations began to run in this case, a factual determination with respect to Hunt's knowledge, both actual and attributed, must be obtained.
Summary judgment is, therefore, inapposite.
All Rights Reserved.