## Facts

- Clive Goodman, suffering from serious liver disease, executed a general power of attorney in favor of his mother, Gladys K. Goodman, and later transferred his principal asset, Ozzie’s East Tavern, to her about a year before his death.
- Gladys sold the tavern on an installment contract for approximately $70,000 and deposited the proceeds into her personal account.
- Clive died in November 1983, leaving four children (Scott, Craig, Michelle, and step-daughter Tamara); all were minors except Tamara.
- Through Scott T. Goodman as personal representative, the children alleged Clive transferred assets to Gladys to hold in trust for them until they were old enough to manage the property; Gladys asserted the transfer was a gift and that the claims were time-barred.
- A jury found Gladys held the property in trust for the children and wrongfully withheld it.
- The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) to Gladys on the ground that the children’s action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review to address whether JNOV based on limitations was proper given disputed accrual facts and the lack of a limitations instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could grant JNOV on statute-of-limitations grounds when the defendant did not request jury instructions submitting that defense to the jury.
2. Whether, on the evidentiary record, the date the statute of limitations began to run on the children’s trust claim was a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
3. Whether the evidence compelled a finding that the trust had been repudiated earlier than the beneficiaries’ demand and the trustee’s refusal, such that the claim was time-barred as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the JNOV and rejected resolving the limitations defense against the jury’s verdict on a disputed record.
- The Court held that when limitations accrual depends on when an alleged trustee repudiated a trust, and the evidence supports more than one reasonable view, accrual presents a factual question not suitable for JNOV.
- The Court concluded the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes about repudiation and accrual and thereby displaced the jury’s role.
- The Court also emphasized the procedural defect in relying on limitations post-verdict where the defendant did not request instructions presenting the fact-dependent limitations theory to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A trust may be express or implied from circumstances demonstrating the parties’ intent, even without formal trust documentation.
- For an express trust subject to a three-year statute of limitations, the limitations period does not begin to run until the trust is repudiated and the beneficiary knows or should know of the repudiation.
- Repudiation requires conduct that is plain, strong, and unequivocal, by which the trustee denies the trust and claims the property as the trustee’s own.
- JNOV is proper only when, viewing evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, there is no competent evidence to sustain the verdict.
- When the timing of repudiation (and thus accrual) is reasonably disputable, it is a fact question for the jury and cannot be resolved as a matter of law on JNOV.
- A party should submit a fact-dependent statute-of-limitations defense to the jury through requested instructions rather than reserve it for post-verdict disposition.

## Conclusion

The court held that limitations on a trust claim accrues upon clear repudiation known or chargeable to the beneficiaries, and where the evidence permits competing inferences about when repudiation occurred, the issue is for the jury; a trial court may not use JNOV to impose its own factual view of accrual, particularly when the defendant failed to request limitations instructions.


Goodman v. Goodman, 128 Wash. 2d 366, 907 P.2d 290 (1995)