## Facts

- Marian I. Erdelyi and her mother held a brokerage investment account as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
- Under the account agreement, either joint tenant could place trades or withdraw funds unless that authority was revoked in writing.
- Bradley T. Lott served as the stockbroker/financial advisor on the account.
- Erdelyi alleged Lott made misrepresentations and omissions and engaged in improper transactions that harmed her financial interest in the joint account.
- Erdelyi sued Lott for fraud and constructive fraud.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury in a way that asked it to compare the parties’ fault and included Erdelyi on the verdict form for apportionment purposes.
- The jury found constructive fraud, but it also found Erdelyi “knew or in the exercise of due diligence should have known” before a specified date (February 10, 2007) that the fraud occurred.
- Based on the jury’s discovery-date finding, the district court entered judgment dismissing the action as barred by the statute of limitations.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court misstated the law by instructing the jury to compare the victim’s fault with the defendant’s fault, and by using negligence-style framing, in a case alleging fraud/constructive fraud.
2. Whether the trial court erred in submitting a fraud “discovery” question and related instructions to the jury, and then dismissing the case as time-barred, when the record did not support a finding that Erdelyi discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud earlier.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
- The Court held that, when the correct legal standards were applied, the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that Erdelyi could have discovered Lott’s fraud earlier so as to bar her claims under the statute of limitations.
- The Court concluded that the instructions and verdict form improperly imported comparative-fault and negligence concepts into a fraud case in a manner that misstated the law and affected the limitations ruling.
- The case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud and constructive fraud are intentional-tort claims; jury instructions should not treat them as negligence claims by asking jurors to compare the victim’s “fault” to reduce or defeat liability.
- Wyoming’s fraud statute of limitations runs from when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or, with due diligence, should have discovered it.
- A limitations-based dismissal after trial cannot stand if the jury’s discovery-date finding rests on an incorrect legal standard or lacks evidentiary support.
- Jury instructions and verdict forms must accurately state the law governing intentional torts and must not shift the jury’s focus from the defendant’s deceptive conduct to a negligence-based assessment of the victim.

## Conclusion

Erdelyi v. Lott held that the district court’s comparative-fault and negligence-style discovery instructions distorted the proper analysis for fraud and constructive fraud, and that the evidence did not support an earlier-discovery finding sufficient to time-bar Erdelyi’s claims; the Wyoming Supreme Court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.


Erdelyi v. Lott, 326 P.3d 165 (2014)