Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 859 (2026)

Limitation extended in cases of fraud

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a person, liable to any action mentioned, fraudulently conceals the cause thereof from the person entitled thereto, or if a fraud is committed which entitles any person to an action, the action may be commenced at any time within 6 years after the person entitled thereto discovers that he has just cause of action, except as provided in section 3580. [PL 1985, c. 641, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1985, c. 641, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 82 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Paul Rheaume, 2016 ME 131 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Paul Rheaume, 2016 ME 131 (Me. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 14 M.R.S. § 859 (2015). DBRS argued that the extended limitations period of section 859 would have commenced in 2013—when it first discovered McKee’s mortgage on the Brunswick Avenue property—and not at the time of the transaction in 2006, because it had relied upon the…”

McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009). · cites it 6× “[¶ 15] Regardless of when his cause of action initially accrued, McKinnon contends alternatively that the statutory limitations period should be tolled pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 859 (2008) because this action is based on fraud through Honeywell's fraudulent concealment of facts.”

McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463 (Me. 1994). · cites it 4× “Although McAfee asserts that he would have raised this issue had he been granted leave to amend his complaint, he did not seek leave from the Superior Court to do so, even after the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.”

Chiapetta v. Clark Assocs., 521 A.2d 697 (Me. 1987). · cites it 6× “56 regarding the applicability of 14 M.R.S.A. § 859 (Supp. 1986), governing the commencement of actions when fraudulent concealment is alleged.”

Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d 987 (Me. 1982). · cites it 4× “§ 752-A, and causes of action fraudulently concealed, 14 M.R.S.A. § 859. [4] However, "[t]he legislative recognition of the need for a discovery rule of accrual in certain situations .”

Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “Klemens argues that the applicable statute of limitations should be 14 M.R.S.A. § 859 (Supp. *576 1999), which provides that actions based on fraud “may be commenced at any time within 6 years after the person entitled thereto discovers [the] cause of action.”

Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2005 ME 57 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 859, 866 (2003). Consequently, the trial court acted within the scope of its discretion when it concluded that its consideration of the statute of limitations issue would be premature.”

Dickey v. Vermette, 960 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “§ 859 (2007), fully applicable to the Maine Health Security Act statute of limitations, provides that the statute of limitations may be tolled where a plaintiff has failed to learn of a cause of action as a result of the defendant’s fraud.”

Francis v. Stinson, 2000 ME 173 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “14 M.R.S.A. § 859 (Supp.1999). In a case of fraud, “the statute starts to run when the existence of the cause of action or fraud is discovered or should have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of due diligence and ordinary prudence,” Westman v.”

Harkness v. Fitzgerald, 1997 ME 207 (Me. 1997). · cites it 3× “[¶ 5] Plaintiff next argues that the court erred in ruling as a matter of law on her claim pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 859 (Supp.1996) 2 that her action was timely, if brought within six years of the date on which she discovered the cause of action fraudulently concealed from her…”

Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 956 A.2d 110 (Me. 2008). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S. § 859 (2007); 3 Kobritz v. Severance, 2007 ME 3, ¶ 13 , 912 A.”

Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2003 ME 11 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “[¶ 14] Although the OSA defendants had only moved for a partial summary judgment against the OSA plaintiffs on their fraudulent concealment claims, the Superi- or Court granted a summary judgment against all of the plaintiffs with respect to all their remaining claims of…”

Show all 82 citing cases →

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.