(1) In every action upon a merchants' account as described in subsection (9) of KRS
413.120, the limitation shall be computed from January 1 next succeeding the
respective dates of the delivery of the several articles charged in the account.
Judgment shall be rendered for no more than the amount of articles actually charged
or delivered within five (5) years preceding that in which the action was brought. If
any merchant willfully postdates any article charged in such account, or the receipt
for the delivery of it, he shall forfeit ten (10) times the amount of the article
postdated, to be credited against the account. This credit shall be allowed in an
action on the account, without any written pleadings setting it up.
(2) In an action to recover a balance due upon a mutual open and current account
concerning the trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant or their
agents, as described in subsection (10) of KRS 413.120, where there have been
reciprocal demands between the parties, the cause of action is deemed to have
accrued from the time of the last item proved in the account claimed, or proved to
be chargeable on the adverse side.
(3) In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake, referred to in subsection (11)
of KRS 413.120, the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the
discovery of the fraud or mistake. However, the action shall be commenced within
ten (10) years after the time of making the contract or the perpetration of the fraud.
Effective: June 24, 2015
History: Amended 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 121, sec. 4, effective June 24, 2015. -- Amended
1998 Ky. Acts ch. 196, sec. 30, effective July 15, 1998. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts
ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 2518, 2519, 2520.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
62
cases (
17 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case:
Dodd v. Dyke Indus., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 970 (W.D. Ky. 2007).
Dodd v. Dyke Indus., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 970 (W.D. Ky. 2007).
· cites it 14× “Defendant has moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Count II of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, which alleges fraud in the performance of Plaintiffs compensation plan, is barred by the statute of limitations contained in Ky.Rev.Stat. § 413.130(3). The motion…”
In Re Beverly Hills Fire Litig., 672 S.W.2d 922 (Ky. 1984).
· cites it 4× “135" and "concluded that, because section 413.130 (now KRS 413.135) could cut off a common law right to recovery before a cause of action even accrues, it violated Ky.”
Martello v. Santana, 874 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Ky. 2012).
· cites it 4× “120(12). Under KRS § 413.120(3), a cause of action for fraud is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud, although the action must be commenced within 10 years after the perpetration of the fraud.”
Skaggs v. Vaughn, 550 S.W.2d 574 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 5× “-120 provides: “The following actions shall be commenced within five (5) years after the cause of action accrued: * * * (12) An action for relief or damages on the ground of fraud or mistake.” KRS 413.130(3) provides: “In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake,…”
Denzik v. Denzik, 197 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Statute of Limitations In view of the fact that we believe that fraudulent misrepresentation arose in this case, we find that it was ongoing to the extent that the conduct of Blazar came within the applicable statute of limitations set out in KRS 413.130(3). Denzik recovered…”
Allen v. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. of Kentucky, 216 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “This argument fails under KRS 413.130(3) which provides: In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake, referred to in subsection (12) of KRS 413.”
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Wilhite, 143 S.W.3d 604 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“245 (professional service malpractice actions) and KRS 413.130(3) (fraud actions). 38 Further, “the same statute which established the one-year limitation for an action for injuries to cattle or livestock by a corporation codified the “discovery rule” for medical malpractice…”
Large v. Oberson, 537 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the Denzik court used the limitations period for ordinary fraud contained in KRS 413.130(3). Id. at 111 . KRS 413.130(3) contains an overall limit of ten years from execution of the fraudulent act.”
Hernandez v. Daniel, 471 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 3× “KRS 413.130(3) provides: “In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake, referred to in subsection (12) of KRS 413.”
Shelton v. Clifton, 746 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “§§ 2515, 2519), held that the limitation period begins to run once the cause of action accrues and that absent evidence that the fraud could not have been discovered within the five-year period by the exercise of ordinary diligence, the cause of action accrues at the time the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.130(1) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.130(1)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.130(3) — 39 cases
Dodd v. Dyke Indus., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 970 (W.D. Ky. 2007).
“Defendant has moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Count II of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, which alleges fraud in the performance of Plaintiffs compensation plan, is barred by the statute of limitations contained in Ky.Rev.Stat. § 413.130(3). The motion…”
Martello v. Santana, 874 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Ky. 2012).
“120(12). Under KRS § 413.120(3), a cause of action for fraud is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud, although the action must be commenced within 10 years after the perpetration of the fraud.”
Skaggs v. Vaughn, 550 S.W.2d 574 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
“-120 provides: “The following actions shall be commenced within five (5) years after the cause of action accrued: * * * (12) An action for relief or damages on the ground of fraud or mistake.” KRS 413.130(3) provides: “In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake,…”
Denzik v. Denzik, 197 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2006).
“Statute of Limitations In view of the fact that we believe that fraudulent misrepresentation arose in this case, we find that it was ongoing to the extent that the conduct of Blazar came within the applicable statute of limitations set out in KRS 413.130(3). Denzik recovered…”
Allen v. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. of Kentucky, 216 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“This argument fails under KRS 413.130(3) which provides: In an action for relief or damages for fraud or mistake, referred to in subsection (12) of KRS 413.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.