Mulero v. Snow
A plaintiff who proves that he was "legally incapable" during the relevant time period may be entitled to the tolling of the statute of limitations, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-576(b), even if the plaintiff frequently commences suit in Superior Court. Allegedly, the defendant, a real-estate developer, showed the plaintiff, Felipe Mulero, a single-family residence, and indicated that the roof, windows and doors were new and that the defendant intended to replace the heating and air conditioning. After the plaintiff purchased the property, the defendant allegedly refused to replace the heating and air conditioning. On Jan. 20, 2012, the plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation. The defendant moved for summary judgment and argued that the six-year statute of limitations in C.G.S. §52-576(a) expired. The plaintiff requested that the court toll the statute of limitations, pursuant to C.G.S. §52-576(b), because the plaintiff suffers from a mental disability. The statute provides, "Any person legally incapable of bringing any such action at the accruing of the right of action may sue at any time within three years after becoming legally capable of bringing the action." The statute does not define the phrase "legally capable." The plaintiff, who is the recipient of Social Security disability income, submitted documents to support his claim he has a mental disability. Considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence indicates that the plaintiff might have been legally incompetent during the applicable time period. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's activism in filing five other Superior Court suits, starting in 2009, indicated that the plaintiff was legally competent during the applicable time period. There was a genuine issue of material fact whether the plaintiff was "legally incapable" and was entitled to tolling of the statute of limitations, and the court denied the motion for summary judgment.