Au v. PurpleLotusTemple
The wife of plaintiff Thomas Ho-Nien Au made a substantial charitable donation to defendant Purple Lotus Temple (Temple) in 1992. After Au objected, she agreed not to make any further large donations to the Temple. Yet in 2002, Au learned that his wife had made many substantial subsequent donations to the Temple without his knowledge. After the couple divorced in 2003, Au sued the Temple to recover his community property share of the donations.
The jury found that Au had not consented to the donations and that his claims to recover the donations made after the initial large donation were not barred by the statute of limitations. Au was awarded his share of these later donations, partially reduced to account for his negligence. The Temple argues that the jurys decision must be reversed because Aus claims were all time-barred, either because he was deemed to have knowledge of the donations disclosed in his federal income tax returns or because his claims accrued when he became suspicious that his wife would not keep her word. Au cross appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously precluded him from arguing that the Temple was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense regarding the initial large donation. Court affirm.
Comments on Au v. PurpleLotusTemple