Motivation Comes Late For Oregon Franchisee

Unhappy franchisees of motivational guru Anthony Robbins failed to convince a U.S. District Court that the Oregon Franchise Act's (the Act) three year statute of limitations should run from the time they discovered their alleged fraud. Towne v. Robbins, No. 02-1688-MO, 2004 WL 1987121, (D.Or., 2004). In a motion for partial summary judgment by the franchisor, the court held that the Act clearly bars claims beyond three years from the "sale" of a franchise, discovery of the basis of the claim notwithstanding.

The plaintiffs, Robert A. and Cynthia J. Towne, husband and wife, signed on as franchisees to sell Robbins' motivational books and tapes in 1991. They renewed their franchise agreement in 1996, then again in 2001. On August 30, 2002, the Townes claimed to have realized that Robbins had lured them into their franchise agreements by means of a number of falsehoods. Robbins contends that the claims are time-barred due to the limitations of the Oregon Franchise Act. OFA 650.020(6).

The court agreed with Robbins. The court compared the Act with other Oregon statutes that explicitly tolled their limitations from discovery of wrongdoing, and reasoned that because the Act did not include similar language, the Legislature did not intend for tolling to restart with discovery. Additionally, the court denied the Townes' equitable estoppel arguments, holding that any "exceptional" circumstances claimed by the Townes did not fall outside the purview of the Act.

Finally, the court denied partial summary judgment on the 2001 renewal claim, stating that neither side put forth enough evidence for the court to rule. The court placed the burden on the plaintiff to produce some evidence of their claim, giving them two weeks to do so and forestall a favorable ruling for Robbins.