Opinion ID: 1967796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Questions About the Statute of Limitations to Be Addressed on Remand

Text: This opinion will not resolve all outstanding issues concerning the statute of limitations. For example, GPA II reiterates additional arguments that it made to the trial court, asserting that, on other occasions from 1998 to 2001, it did not merely repudiate the 1998 Letter Agreement but actually breached it. First, GPA II states that in November 1998, it was openly attempting to sell the ROFO to GPA. Second, GPA II asserts that in January 2001 it expressly refused to proceed under the terms of the 1998 Letter. Finally, GPA II and Miller argue that on May 25, 2001, they  unilaterally evaluated and rejected GPA's offer [to sell the Property to GPA II]expressly stating they owned the ROFO and that their rejection of GPA's offer could not `be construed as a waiver of the [ROFO].' See note 3, supra. Each of these alleged breaches, GPA argues, started the running of the statute of limitations more than three years before the complaint was filed. The trial court did not reach these questions, and we decline to address them for the first time on appeal. The Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment before discovery was conducted, and we do not know enough about the surrounding facts to determine whether any of these events might have triggered the statute of limitations. Thus, we return these issues to the trial court for consideration.