statute of repose defense (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

statute of repose defense in North Carolina

14 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Lee v. Baxtergreen
ncctapp · 2001 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2026
2 sentences

2026According to the Lee court, Ford’s comparison fell short because “[u]nlike a claim for immunity, Ford’s right to raise the statute of repose defense will not be lost if we do not review the case prior to a final judgment” because “[t]he only loss Ford will suffer will be the time and expense of trial.” Id. at 520 .

2026In Byrd, our Supreme Court expressly overruled this Court’s holding in Lee v. Baxter that a “a statute of repose does not confer a substantial right and therefore an order denying a statute of repose defense is not immediately appealable.” Id. at 41, 44 , 927 S.E.2d at 20, 22 (citing Lee v. Baxter, 147 N.C.

23
Bryant v. Adamsgreen
ncctapp · 1994 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017
2 sentences

2017App. 448 , 448 S.E.2d 832 (1994), disc. review denied , 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995), to argue equitable estoppel may defeat a statute of repose defense.

2011“Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant’s statute of repose defense.” Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . “ ‘The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.’ ” Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.

14
One North McDowell Ass'n of Unit Owners, Inc. v. McDowell Development Co.green
ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1994–2008
2 sentences

2008App. 125 , 389 S.E.2d 834 (1990), for the proposition that “[e]quitable estoppel may . . . defeat a defendant’s statute of repose defense.” Wood at 220 , 601 S.E.2d at 314 .

2001See Bryant v. Adams, 116 N.C.App. 448, 460 , 448 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1994) ("Equitable estoppel may ... defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense."), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995); One North McDowell Assn. v. McDowell Development Co., 98 N.C.App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that "[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time" and concluding that "Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs' action"), disc. review denied,

14
Wood v. BD&A Construction, L.L.C.green
ncctapp · 2004 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016
2 sentences

2016L.L.C., 166 N.C.App. 216 , 220, 601 S.E.2d 311 , 314 (2004), that "[e]quitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." This quotation is taken out of context.

2016L.L.C., 166 N.C.App. 216 , 220, 601 S.E.2d 311 , 314 (2004), that "[e]quitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." This quotation is taken out of context.

13
Brookwood Unit Ownership Ass'n v. Delongreen
nc · 1995 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017
2 sentences

2017App. 448 , 448 S.E.2d 832 (1994), disc. review denied , 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995), to argue equitable estoppel may defeat a statute of repose defense.

2001See Bryant v. Adams, 116 N.C.App. 448, 460 , 448 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1994) ("Equitable estoppel may ... defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense."), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995); One North McDowell Assn. v. McDowell Development Co., 98 N.C.App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that "[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time" and concluding that "Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs' action"), disc. review denied,

12
Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co.green
nc · 1995 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017
2 sentences

2017App. 448 , 448 S.E.2d 832 (1994), disc. review denied , 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995), to argue equitable estoppel may defeat a statute of repose defense.

2001See Bryant v. Adams, 116 N.C.App. 448, 460 , 448 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1994) ("Equitable estoppel may ... defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense."), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995); One North McDowell Assn. v. McDowell Development Co., 98 N.C.App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that "[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time" and concluding that "Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs' action"), disc. review denied,

12
Hargett v. Hollandgreen
nc · 1994 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See Hargett, 337 N.C. at 654 (“A statute of repose creates an additional element of the claim itself which must be satisfied in order for the claim to be maintained.”); McCrater v. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp., 248 N.C. -36- BYRD V.

11
Black v. Littlejohngreen
· 1985 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See Black, 312 N.C. at 633 (describing statutes of repose as substantive, condition precedents, that “prevents a plaintiff's right of action even before his cause of action may accrue . . . .”).

11
Head v. Gould Killian Cpa Grp., P.A.green
ncctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018The dissent rejected the majority’s statute of repose analysis, instead concluding that the last act or omission regarding the “2006 and 2007 tax returns occurred on 12 December 2008, when Defendants hand delivered Plaintiff her 2007 prepared returns.” Id. at ___, 795 S.E.2d at 151 (Enochs, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2018The dissent rejected the majority's statute of repose analysis, instead concluding that the last act or omission regarding the "2006 and 2007 tax returns occurred on 12 December 2008, when Defendants hand delivered Plaintiff her 2007 prepared returns." Id . at ----, 795 S.E.2d at 151 (Enochs, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Goodman v. Holmes & McLaurin Attorneys at Law green
ncctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2025Stat. § 1-15 (c) contained no comparable exception to prohibit a defendant from raising the issue of statute of repose and stated we have “consistently refused to apply equitable doctrines to estop a defendant from asserting a statute of repose defense in the legal malpractice context . . . .” Goodman, 192 N.C.

2016Accordingly, "[t]his Court has consistently refused to apply equitable doctrines to estop a defendant from asserting a statute of repose defense in the legal malpractice context...." Goodman , 192 N.C.App. at 474 -75 , 665 S.E.2d at 532 .

22016–2025
Hoots v. Pryor green
nc · 1992
2 sentences

2011"Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . "`The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.'" Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.App. 285, 290-91 , 416 S.E.2d 426, 430 , disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 344 , 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). "`The party asserting the defense mu

2011"Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . "`The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.'" Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.App. 285, 290-91 , 416 S.E.2d 426, 430 , disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 344 , 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). "`The party asserting the defense mu

22011–2011
Hensell v. Winslow neutral
nc · 1992
2 sentences

2011App. 285, 290-91 , 416 S.E.2d 426, 430 , disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 344 , 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). “ ‘The party asserting the defense must have (1) a lack of knowledge and the means of knowledge as to the real facts in question; and (2) relied upon the conduct of the party sought to be estopped to his prejudice.’ ” Id. (quoting Hensell, 106 N.C.

2011"Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . "`The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.'" Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.App. 285, 290-91 , 416 S.E.2d 426, 430 , disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 344 , 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). "`The party asserting the defense mu

22011–2011
Hensell v. Winslow green
ncctapp · 1992
2 sentences

2011“Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant’s statute of repose defense.” Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . “ ‘The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.’ ” Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.

2011"Equitable estoppel may also defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense." Id. at 460 , 448 S.E.2d at 838 . "`The essential elements of estoppel are (1) conduct on the part of the party sought to be estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct will be acted on by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.'" Id. (quoting Hensell v. Winslow, 106 N.C.App. 285, 290-91 , 416 S.E.2d 426, 430 , disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 344 , 421 S.E.2d 148 (1992)). "`The party asserting the defense mu

22011–2011
Wallace v. Jarvis green
ncctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2026Because GARA creates a conditional immunity from suit, the relevant substantial-rights framework is that expressed in Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.

12026–2026
Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc. neutral
nc · 2006
1 sentence

2014App. 185, 187 , 625 S.E.2d 860, 861 , disc. rev. denied, 360 7 As a result of the fact that the claims that Plaintiff has asserted against them sound in breach of fiduciary duty rather than defective construction, Mr. Culbreth and Mr. Ward have not asserted a statute of repose defense in their brief. -24- N.C. 545, 635 S.E.2d 62 (2006)).

12014–2014
Whittaker v. Todd green
ncctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2014App. 185, 187 , 625 S.E.2d 860, 861 , disc. rev. denied, 360 7 As a result of the fact that the claims that Plaintiff has asserted against them sound in breach of fiduciary duty rather than defective construction, Mr. Culbreth and Mr. Ward have not asserted a statute of repose defense in their brief. -24- N.C. 545, 635 S.E.2d 62 (2006)).

12014–2014
Bryant v. Don Galloway Homes, Inc. green
ncctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2014A statute of repose “is a substantive limitation that establishes a time frame in which an action must be brought to be recognized.” Bryant v. Don Galloway Homes, Inc., 147 N.C.

12014–2014
One North McDowell Ass'n v. McDowell Development Co. neutral
nc · 1990
2 sentences

2001App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that “[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time” and concluding that “Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs’ action”), disc, review denied, 327 N.C. 432 , 395 S.E.2d 686 (1990).

2001See Bryant v. Adams, 116 N.C.App. 448, 460 , 448 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1994) ("Equitable estoppel may ... defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense."), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995); One North McDowell Assn. v. McDowell Development Co., 98 N.C.App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that "[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time" and concluding that "Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs' action"), disc. review denied,

12001–2001
Rich v. Shaw neutral
nc · 1990
2 sentences

2001App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that “[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time” and concluding that “Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs’ action”), disc, review denied, 327 N.C. 432 , 395 S.E.2d 686 (1990).

2001See Bryant v. Adams, 116 N.C.App. 448, 460 , 448 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1994) ("Equitable estoppel may ... defeat a defendant's statute of repose defense."), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 736 , 454 S.E.2d 647 (1995); One North McDowell Assn. v. McDowell Development Co., 98 N.C.App. 125, 127-28 , 389 S.E.2d 834, 836 (stating that "[i]t is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel will deny the right to assert a defense based on lapse of time" and concluding that "Defendants are therefore estopped from raising [the statute of repose] in bar of plaintiffs' action"), disc. review denied,

12001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 (9) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (8) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-15 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-17 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 16 (1992–2025) IL 14 (1981–2015) NC 14 (1994–2026) GA 10 (1994–2022) MI 9 (1996–2018) TN 8 (1992–2014) FL 7 (1988–2025) MN 6 (2006–2016) WA 6 (2014–2024) IN 4 (2001–2012) SD 3 (1986–2001) MD 3 (2025–2025) IA 3 (2002–2022) OH 2 (2012–2019) MA 2 (1996–1999) WV 2 (2015–2015) UT 2 (2017–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check