Isn&#39;t statute of limitations irrelevant in real life?
<p>Say someone steals a property title or somehow obtains property fraudulently.</p>
<p>Since the transfer of property was never legitimate, didn't the actual title never change, and therefore, the statute never runs?</p>
<p>For example if Zuckerberg stole Facebook from Paul Ceglia doesntt that mean if Paul can prove it he will always be the legitimate owner since the transfer to Zuckerberg was fraudulent? Why else would the case still exist 14 years later? Same with forging a car registration or anything similar?</p>

<p>The statute of limitations is quite relevant.</p>
<p>A couple points to help explain why:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>First, there are a lot of different legal actions that could arise from someone stealing property. You could have criminal charges for theft, you could have a civil claim for conversion (to pay the value of the stolen property), you could have a civil claim for replevin (to return the stolen goods), and you could have a civil action to determine the true owner of the property.</p>
<p>All those cases arise under different laws, and all of them could have different SOLs. The fact that time has run out for one doesn't necessarily mean that time has run out for all of them.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Second, improperly obtaining title <em>does not</em> mean that you are not and never will be the true title holder. Take a look at the doctrine of &quot;adverse possession,&quot; which basically allows you to become the true owner of real or personal property by simply acting like the owner for a long enough period of time -- ranging from 5 to 21 years, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Third, SOL is a restriction on when you can <em>start</em> a lawsuit. Sometimes, as Dale M said, it starts when you actually learn about the transfer, but it could also start when you <em>would have</em> learned about the transfer if you had exercised reasonable diligence. So the fact that a lawsuit is happening now regarding something that happened a long time ago doesn't necessarily mean the SOL was inoperative; it may just mean that the SOL didn't start until long after the transfer, or it majy just mean the litigation is dragging out.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Fourth, the Facebook example is not a good one. <a href="http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/cegliavszuck.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">That lawsuit</a> is primarily focused not on the transfer of property, but on breaches of contract, for which <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-practice-law-and-rules/cvp-sect-213.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the relevant statute of limitations is six years</a>. Second, those breaches are focused on a contract reached in 2004. Because the lawsuit began in 2010, it was started within the statute of limitations. Had Ceglia waited until today to file it, he probably would time-barred.</p>
</li>
</ul>

<h2>The statute of limitations is entirely relevant in real-life</h2>
<p>The purpose of such statutes (for civil claims) is to allow people to be secure in their property and to require those who believe they have a claim against it to act promptly on that claim.</p>
<p>Let's follow the logic. I obtain some property (fraudulently or otherwise). I keep it for a few years and then sell it to you. Ten years later, the original owner comes to you and says &quot;give it back&quot; claiming that the transfer to me was never legitimate. I'm nowhere to be found. Is that fair to you?</p>
<p>Now, replace &quot;years&quot; in the above with &quot;months&quot; or &quot;weeks&quot;. Is the original owner not being able to claim it fair to them?</p>
<p>Funny how the passage of time can change what we think of as fair.</p>
<p>What a statute of limitations actually does is provide a time limit on how long after an aggrieved person became aware (or when a reasonable person in their position should have become aware) to initiate a claim against the person who wronged them.</p>
<p>So in the above example, when I acquired the property, if it was done fraudulently, there was a moment in time when the person I took it from became (or should have become) aware that I had done it. The clock then starts ticking. Depending on jurisdiction and the particular wrong determines how long it ticks for.</p>
<p>From that point, the aggrieved person knows the clock is ticking and they better get off their proverbial, find me and inititiate a claim against me. If they don't then I (and you) get to keep it. Largely on the basis that if you can't be bothered defending your rights why should you keep them? But also as a practical matter that the further something is in the past, the harder it is to prove what happened: records get lost, witnesses die, buildings get demolished, even legal systems change.</p>
<p>Now, the claim may take a long time to finalize, years typically, sometimes decades, however, the statute of limitations doesn't apply to how long it takes for the dispute to be resolved. It only limits when a claim can be started.</p>

civil-law