Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period bars a trespass claim filed more than three years after the plaintiff learned of the unauthorized entry.

Bassett v. Jensen · filed 2020-05-11

Because the cause of action accrued more than three years before Bassett filed suit on March 26, 2018, it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 2A's three-year limitations period begins to run for claims arising from a fiduciary relationship when the plaintiff actually knows of the harm caused by the fiduciary's conduct.

Connell v. Robert J. Morrissey. · filed 2025-06-11

The parties agree that all claims are subject to a three- year limitations period, see G. L. c. 260, § 2A, and that the actual knowledge standard applies. ... Connell's actual knowledge of the harm forming the basis of his claims then triggered the running of the limitations period. See Tocci, 490 Mass. at 12-13. This action, filed on March 7, 2023, was therefore timely.

Section 2A’s three-year period for a fraud claim begins when the plaintiff learns or reasonably should have learned of the misrepresentation.

William I. Koch; Renegade Management, Inc.; And Nauticus Marina, Inc. v. Mark Curley and Bridge Street Marina, LLC · filed 2025-06-23

Defendants also contend that the fraudulent inducement claim is time-barred by the three-year limitations period for torts imposed by G.L. c. 260, § 2A. ... This argument fails because a fraud claim does not accrue until the plaintiff “learns or reasonably should have learned of the misrepresentation” by the defendant.

Section 2A provides a three-year filing period, but that period cannot extend the deadline for a negligence claim based on a duty created by the EFAA.

Aresty International Law Firm, P.C. v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2012-04-27

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A (three years). The district court therefore disposed of this claim using plain language that we explicitly endorse: where a state-law negligence claim is based on the breach of a duty established by the EFAA, "[p]ermitting an action for negligence to be brought under general state-law tort principles and within time limits set by state law would expand the remedies possible against banks and thus would be inconsistent with the limitations provided in federal law."

Section 2A establishes a limitations period for certain actions but does not create a right of action.

Schwartz v. Hri Hosp., Inc. · filed 2017-12-29

Count one alleges "wrongful suspension under G. L. c. 260, § 2A," against "the defendants." That statutory section does not provide a right of action; it establishes a limitations period for certain types of actions.