Brian H. Renken

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment due to an expired limitation period, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendants sought $30,044.19, while the plaintiff suggested $15,000.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the timing of the summary judgment motion, ultimately fixing costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff purchased a sunroom installed by the defendant in 2001 and experienced severe problems with it during the first winter.

The plaintiff commenced an action for rescission of the contract in December 2010.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the cause of action was discovered by the end of the winter of 2001/2002, making the six-year limitation period under the 1990 Limitations Act applicable.

Even under the 2002 Limitations Act, the court found the action was out of time, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that a legal proceeding was appropriate by February 2007 at the latest.