The evidence in this case struck me as incomplete. Tafoya, the plaintiff, stated that in cases in which there is an "unliquidated, determinable amount of money," there should be a six-year rather than a two-year statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's assertion that there should be a six-year statute of limitations on taking action in the case was wrong because the judge could not determine this amount of money due from...
The evidence in this case struck me as incomplete. Tafoya, the plaintiff, stated that in cases in which there is an "unliquidated, determinable amount of money," there should be a six-year rather than a two-year statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's assertion that there should be a six-year statute of limitations on taking action in the case was wrong because the judge could not determine this amount of money due from looking at the original partnership agreement. It seems like what is missing in this case is the purchase agreement of the apartment complex from 1994 so that the judge could determine the amount of money that was in question. If the judge had this information, the judge could determine the amount of money in question and grant a longer period for the statue of limitations. Therefore, Tafoya might have had a claim to the money resulting from the sale of the apartment complex. You may also determine that other evidence was missing in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment