relation-back doctrine in Massachusetts

2020Trust v. HealthSouth Corp., 447 Mass. 259 , 268 n.24 (2006) ("If a complaint seeking only equitable relief is later amended to 9 Through the relation back doctrine, Atchue offers a feasible means by which her potential negligence claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

2013As we said in Golden, supra at 660-661 , and cases cited, “Where. . . application of the otherwise customary rules of relation back would compromise one of the objectives of a statutory scheme, relation back is not allowed.” We conclude that the objectives of the statutory scheme would not be undermined by permitting ordinary operation of the relation back rule to render NES Rental’s amended complaint timely filed against Maine Drilling and Berkley.

2013Estate of Dawson v. United States, 333 F. Supp. 2d 488, 493 (D.S.C. 2004) (holding that the relation back doctrine under State law cured an otherwise adequate administrative claim for wrongful death that was filed by the decedent’s widow who at the time had been discharged as the legal representative of the estate). 10 Accord McDavid v. United States, 292 F. Supp. 2d 871 (S.D.

2012Weaver v. Commonwealth, 387 Mass. at 48 .

1994Because a statute of repose completely eliminated claims within its scope after six years, Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. at 702 -703 n.3, an amendment otherwise barred by the statute of repose did not, by virtue of the relation back rule, reactivate a cause of action the Legislature intended to eliminate.

1994Because a statute of repose completely eliminated claims within its scope after six years, Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. at 702 -703 n.3, an amendment otherwise barred by the statute of repose did not, by virtue of the relation back rule, reactivate a cause of action the Legislature intended to eliminate.

1979Thus, where parties have attempted to invoke the doctrine of relation back for reasons other than lifting the bar of the statute of limitations, courts have been less willing to apply it, particularly if to do so deprives the party against whom the amendment is made of a substantial right. doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776 , 787 n.11 (which, however, involved *555 following an express policy, articulated in Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153 [1973], against retrospective application of a right by a wife to bring an action for loss of consortium).

1979Thus, where parties have attempted to invoke the doctrine of relation back for reasons other than lifting the bar of the statute of limitations, courts have been less willing to apply it, particularly if to do so deprives the party against whom the amendment is made of a substantial right. doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776 , 787 n.11 (which, however, involved *555 following an express policy, articulated in Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153 [1973], against retrospective application of a right by a wife to bring an action for loss of consortium).

1962Such an assignee would be subject to the surety’s rights of subrogation which related back to the date of the bonds. 7 Nevertheless, it held that the surety’s equity and the doctrine of relation back “cannot be used by a subrogee for the purpose of recovering money paid to a creditor without notice, in satisfaction of a just debt, prior to the maturing of any right of subrogation.” Various other cases are consistent with the result in the California Bank case, 129 F. 2d 751 , although some of these depend in part on the provisions of the Assignment of Claims Act.

1961However, as we pointed out in the Callow case, the relation-back doctrine has not been applied by the courts remorselessly where to do so would work a hardship. 322 Mass. 550, 553-555 .

1961The court held, however, that it would be unjust to extend the relation-back principle to the period prior to the annulment. 1 A contrary result on somewhat similar facts was reached by the Su *252 preme Court of California in Sefton v. Sefton, 45 Cal. 2d 872 .