Court Opinion

ID: 9860741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:31:22.154694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:35.504159
License: Public Domain

LARSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I join Justice Harris’s dissent, with these additional views. The discovery rule was designed to ameliorate the harsh results of charging a claimant with knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim despite the fact he was unaware of them and would not have discovered them in the exercise of reasonable care.
Now the court, while giving lip service to the discovery rule, nevertheless applies an artificial presumption that every person knows the law and concludes the plaintiffs had knowledge of the legal defect in the trust even though there is substantial evidence they in fact had no such knowledge. This stands the discovery rule on its head. The date of the plaintiffs’ knowledge of the legal defect, or when they should have been aware of it, is a disputed fact issue, inappropriate for summary judgment.