Utah Court of Appeals

When does the statute of limitations begin for employment contract breach claims? Clarke v. Living Scriptures Explained

2005 UT App 225
No. 20040381-CA
May 19, 2005
Affirmed

Summary

Stephen Clarke sued his former employer Living Scriptures for breach of employment contract after being terminated. Clarke argued the six-year statute of limitations began when his termination became effective on December 24, 1997, rather than when he received notice of termination on December 9, 1997. The trial court dismissed the claim as untimely filed.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In Clarke v. Living Scriptures, Stephen Clarke worked for Living Scriptures under an employment contract that could be terminated for failure to meet minimum sales requirements. On December 9, 1997, Clarke received written notice that his contract would be terminated effective fifteen days later. Clarke continued working until the effective termination date of December 24, 1997. Six years and fourteen days after receiving notice, Clarke filed suit alleging breach of employment contract. Living Scriptures moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was barred by Utah’s six-year statute of limitations for written contracts.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was determining when Clarke’s cause of action accrued—whether on December 9, 1997 when he received termination notice, or December 24, 1997 when termination became effective. Clarke argued the notice constituted merely an anticipatory breach and that the statute of limitations should not begin until actual termination occurred.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals rejected Clarke’s anticipatory breach argument, noting that the termination notice was unequivocal and immediate, not a future refusal to perform. Following federal precedent from Delaware State College v. Ricks, the court held that breach of contract claims accrue when employees receive clear notice of termination, regardless of whether they continue working afterward. The court emphasized that focusing on the discriminatory or breaching act, not when consequences become painful, serves sound policy by encouraging employers to provide post-termination benefits without extending liability periods.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah practitioners must advise employment clients to file contract breach claims within six years of receiving termination notice, not the effective termination date. The ruling protects employers who provide severance or extended benefits while ensuring employees have adequate time to pursue valid claims under Utah’s generous six-year limitations period for written contracts.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Clarke v. Living Scriptures

Citation

2005 UT App 225

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20040381-CA

Date Decided

May 19, 2005

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A breach of employment contract claim accrues when an employee receives unequivocal notice of termination, not on the effective termination date, thereby starting the statute of limitations period.

Standard of Review

Correctness for the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal

Practice Tip

File employment-related contract claims within six years of receiving termination notice, as continuing to work after notice does not extend the limitations period.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Fisher v. Fisher

    March 27, 2003

    Attorney liens cannot attach to funds in the possession of a governmental entity, and attorneys seeking to enforce liens against child support payments must properly intervene in the underlying action or file a separate action.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Baggett v. Cyclopss Medical Systems

    March 27, 1997

    A shareholder whose stock is wrongfully canceled may pursue either a conversion claim or a breach of contract claim, and specific performance is the appropriate remedy when shares have no market value and cannot be readily purchased elsewhere.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Damages
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.