Does a guardianship appointment end the tolling of limitations periods for incompetent persons? McKell v. McKell Explained

In McKell v. McKell, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the appointment of a guardian ends the tolling of statutes of limitations for mentally incompetent persons under Utah Code section 78B-2-108.

Background and Facts

Summer McKell, who suffered birth injuries causing cognitive impairment and other developmental disabilities, sued her adoptive father Robert for sexual abuse. Robert moved to dismiss her claims as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations. Summer opposed, arguing that Utah Code section 78B-2-108 (the Tolling Statute) suspended the limitations period during her incompetency until her current guardian Michelle Tischner was appointed in 2017. The district court granted Robert’s motion, ruling that the limitations period was not tolled while Summer had guardians appointed, including her adoptive mother from 2013-2014.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s tolling statute suspends limitations periods only when an incompetent person lacks a guardian, or throughout the entire period of incompetency regardless of guardianship status. A secondary issue involved whether Summer sufficiently pleaded mental incompetency under the statute.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, relying heavily on Zilleruelo v. Commodity Transporters, Inc., which neither party had brought to the district court’s attention. The Zilleruelo decision clarified that the tolling statute’s language is plain: it tolls limitations periods “during the time that an individual is…mentally incompetent” without requiring the absence of a guardian. The legislature intentionally omitted “without a legal guardian” language from the tolling provision while including it in the provision governing who may initiate claims. The court also found Summer’s allegations of having the intellectual capacity of a twelve-year-old despite being an adult sufficient to establish mental incompetency for pleading purposes.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces attorneys’ ethical obligation to disclose controlling adverse authority to courts. The court declined to apply preservation or invited error doctrines because both parties failed to cite the controlling Zilleruelo precedent. For practitioners handling cases involving mentally incompetent parties, the decision clarifies that guardianship appointments do not automatically restart limitations periods—the key inquiry remains whether the person is actually mentally incompetent under the statutory standard.