Court Opinion

ID: 9689200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:24:34.334287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.056078
License: Public Domain

BRUCE C. STONE, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in both the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion but am constrained to add this special concurrence.
The establishment of a statute of limitations is peculiarly the function of the legislature. Here, E.S.P. commenced its action January 30, 1987, seven days before the six-year statute would expire on February 6, 1987. By Supreme Court rule, a defendant has 20 days in which to answer a complaint. Presumably a defendant ought also to have 20 days in which to commence a third-party action. Now, E.S.P. may well recover from Midway, and Midway will be precluded its day in court against First Bank, the first bank to accept the forged endorsement (and the bank which was in the only position to identify the endorser).
A simple amendment to the statute of limitations might well preclude the substantially inequitable result we are compelled to reach in this case.