Court Opinion

ID: 9529401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:50:28.944717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:46.015981
License: Public Domain

Wedell, J.
(concurring): I concur in the result and particularly in the statement that sufficient facts should be stated in the petition to show that the fraud was discovered within two years prior to filing the action.
It has never been my view that in order to toll the two year fraud statute it is necessary to allege in express terms the fraud was not discovered until within two years prior to the commencement of the *641action, where the facts pleaded sufficiently disclose that was true. Nor has it ever been my opinion that a petition must state the “specific time” the fraud was discovered. Obviously such a rigid requirement would be wholly unworkable. In many cases it is utterly impossible to allege such an exact time. The discovery might well be the result of a number, or combination, of facts and circumstances which initially merely aroused suspicion but which later crystallized into knowledge.
In the instant case the petition plainly alleged the facts indicating both how and when the fraud was discovered within the last two years. That is sufficient. That is precisely what, on numerous occasions, I have urged should be required instead of permitting a pleader, after long years had elapsed, merely to allege that he did not discover the fraud until within two years before he brought the action. See Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 264, 81 P. 2d 23; Preston v. Shields, 159 Kan. 575, 581, 156 P. 2d 543; Schulte v. Westborough, Inc., 163 Kan. 111, 180 P. 2d 278; 172 A. L. R. 259, 265; and my dissenting opinion in Dalton v. Hill, 169 Kan. 388, 396, 219 P. 2d 710, and numerous cases therein cited.
If a mere allegation of lack of previous knowledge is sufficient then, of course, that same testimony alone on the trial must be held sufficient to support a finding of lack of prior knowledge. And that would be true irrespective of the amount and character of defense evidence which discredited plaintiff’s statement. If, under such a rule a jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor an appellate court would be completely powerless in the premises because, in order to be consistent, it would be obliged to hold there was substantial testimony to support the verdict.
Such a rule of pleading and proof opens the door to the rankest kind of fraud on behalf of a plaintiff who seeks relief from a defendant on the ground of alleged fraud. This fact is also frequently illustrated where, after long lapse of time, defense witnesses are no longer available to refute the alleged fraud.
My purpose, at all times, has been to maintain a rule of pleading ' which will assist in eliminating the perpetration of fraud on both sides of a lawsuit. My views on the subject are a matter of record and require no further comment at this time.