Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Jones v. North American Aerodynamics: The Effectiveness of Maine's Borrowing Statute in Cases Involving Corporations

Authors

J. Gordon Scannell Jr., University of Maine School of Law

Abstract

Maine's borrowing statute provides that a person may not bring an action in Maine that has been barred by the laws of another jurisdiction wherein all parties resided. In effect, the statute permits "borrowing" the limitation period of the other jurisdiction. In Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, interpreted the residency requirement of the borrowing statute as it relates to a corporation and held that for purposes of the statute a corporation is a resident of only the state in which it is incorporated. Because of the peculiar wording of the statute, the Law Court's decision in Ouellette raises questions as to the effectiveness of the borrowing statute in the majority of cases involving corporations, especially in light of Jones v. North American Aerodynamics, Inc. On its facts, Jones presented a strong argument for application of the borrowing statute, but as a result of the Ouellette decision, the Law Court held that the statute did not apply. A juxtaposition of the two cases illustrates some fundamental problems with Maine's borrowing statute and the Law Court's interpretation of it.

First Page

211

Recommended Citation

J. G. Scannell Jr., Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Jones v. North American Aerodynamics: The Effectiveness of Maine's Borrowing Statute in Cases Involving Corporations, 37 Me. L. Rev. 211 (1985).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol37/iss1/9