For example, if a defendant has an alleged obligation to make period payments to the plaintiff, refuses to pay the amounts currently owed, and makes " a clear and unequivocal repudiation" of its obligation to make future payments, " the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the repudiation" with respect to both past and future damages. Callender v. Suffolk Cty., 57 Mass.App.Ct. 361, 364, 783 N.E.2d 470 (2003). But the complaint does not allege, and the letter proffered by Defendants does not reveal, any actual breach of contract as of October 2010.
Moreover, Massachusetts courts have held that when there is a clear and unequivocal repudiation of a party's obligations under a contract calling for ongoing performance, the statute of limitations with respect to the entire obligation begins to run from the date of the repudiation. See Callender v. Suffolk County, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 361, 364, 783 N.E.2d 470, 473 (2003) (involving county's violation of continuing weekly obligation to pay assault benefits to corrections officer). Even when there is an obligation to make multiple payments in installments, a clear and unequivocal repudiation will trigger the statute of limitations as to all payments.
April 2, 2003. Further appellate review denied: Reported below: 57 Mass. App. Ct. 361 (2003). MME. JUSTICE COWIN did not participate.
Chambers v. Lemuel Shattuck Hosp., 41 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 213 (1996), quoting Larson v. Larson, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 418, 427 (1991). This is in contrast to a situation where "there is a clear and unequivocal repudiation," in which case "the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the repudiation." Callender v. Suffolk County, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 361, 364 (2003).