Printer Friendly

Fiduciary relationship suspends statute of limitations.

A Texas appellate court ruled the fiduciary relationship between an accountant and a client suspended the running of the statute of limitations for the purpose of bringing a malpractice action.

Woodbine Electric Service, Inc. sued accountant William E. MeReynolds, alleging he failed to detect and disclose the embezzlement of funds by a Woodbine employee. The trial court granted McReynolds's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the two-year statute of limitations expired before Woodbine filed its case.

Woodbine appealed, arguing that although it was aware on April 7, 1986, of the embezzlement and its lawsuit was not filed until May 27, 1988, the earlier date was not appropriate for determining when the statute of limitations began to run. Rather, Woodbine argued, it did not become aware of McReynolds's alleged malpractice until December 1987 - the date he presented his accounting records to Woodbine, which then asked its new accountant to review them for evidence of malpractice.

The appellate court, ruling for Woodbine, stated that despite the accountant's failure to disclose material facts to the client, there exists a fiduciary relationship between a CPA and client that halts the running of the statute of limitations for as long as the duty exists. This duty does not cease until the CPA-client relationship ceases.

Since the question of when Woodbine actually knew or should have known McReynolds might have been negligent remained an issue, summary judgment was held inappropriate and the case was remanded to be tried on its merits. (Woodbine Electric Service, Inc. v. William E. McReynolds, 1 lth Circuit Court of Appeals, Eastland, Texas, no. 11-91-230-CV).
COPYRIGHT 1993 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Mar 1, 1993
Words:265
Previous Article:Client's negligence absolves accountant's negligence.
Next Article:Ernst & Young settles failed thrift case.
Topics:


Related Articles
Ohio statute of limitation.
No time limit for assessing aiding and abetting penalty.
Consulting liabilities.
Privity, statute of limitation in tax case.
Court revises opinion on fiduciary duties.
FDIC claim does not revive statute of limitations period.
Lender suit against accountants barred.
Court rules on relevant statute of limitations.
Some battered women qualify for extension of statute of limitations.
Lovett v. Seniff.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters