Legal Definitions - sleeping on rights

"Sleeping on rights" is a legal phrase that describes a situation where a person unreasonably delays asserting a legal claim or right, and this delay causes harm or prejudice to another party. When this happens, a court may decide that the person has lost their ability to pursue that claim, even if they originally had a valid right. It's a principle rooted in fairness, preventing individuals from waiting an excessive amount of time to bring a claim, especially when their delay makes it difficult or unfair for the other side to defend themselves. This concept is closely associated with the legal doctrine of laches.

Here are some examples to illustrate "sleeping on rights":

• Property Dispute: Imagine a homeowner who discovers their neighbor has been regularly driving across a corner of their property for the past ten years, believing it to be part of a shared access road. The homeowner was aware of this use for most of that decade but never objected or took any legal action. Now, the homeowner decides they want to build a fence and stop the neighbor from using that portion of their land.

  Explanation: The homeowner "slept on their rights" by waiting ten years to challenge the neighbor's use of their property. The neighbor, relying on the homeowner's prolonged inaction, reasonably believed they had a right to use that path and may have invested in maintaining it or structured their property access around it. A court might find it unfair to now allow the homeowner to suddenly block access, as the delay prejudiced the neighbor who relied on the apparent permission.

• Contract Enforcement: A small business entered into a contract with a client that stipulated a late fee for any payments made more than 60 days past the due date. For three years, the client consistently paid their invoices 90-120 days late, but the business owner never enforced the late fee clause, always accepting the principal payment without protest. Now, facing financial difficulties, the business owner decides to demand all the accumulated late fees from the past three years.

  Explanation: The business owner "slept on their rights" by not asserting their contractual right to collect late fees for three years, despite the client's consistent breaches. The client, relying on the business owner's repeated acceptance of late payments without penalty, likely adjusted their payment schedule and financial planning accordingly. It would be prejudicial to the client to suddenly demand a large sum of accumulated late fees, as they had no reason to believe the clause would be enforced after such a long period of non-enforcement by the business owner.

• Challenging a Trust: Several years after a wealthy relative passed away, a potential beneficiary learns that they were excluded from a family trust due to what they believe was a fraudulent amendment made shortly before the relative's death. However, instead of immediately investigating or challenging the trust amendment in court, they wait six years. During this time, the trustee who oversaw the amendment passes away, and the trust assets are fully distributed and spent by the named beneficiaries. Now, the potential beneficiary decides to file a lawsuit to invalidate the amendment.

  Explanation: The potential beneficiary "slept on their rights" by waiting six years to challenge the trust amendment. This significant delay prejudiced the other beneficiaries and the trust itself, as crucial evidence (the trustee's testimony) is no longer available, and the distributed assets would be difficult or impossible to recover. A court would likely bar the claim due to the unreasonable delay and the resulting harm to the other parties involved.