Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-116 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Effect of appointment of legal representative for person under mental disability on running of state statute of limitations against such person. 111 A.L.R.5th 159.

Effect of appointment of legal representative for minor on running of state statute of limitations against minor. 1 A.L.R.6th 407.

Ark. L. Rev.

Recent Developments: Charitable-Immunity Doctrine — Direct-Action Statute, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 199.

Case Notes

In General.

Where the statute begins to run during the life of the devisor, no disability in the devisee will stop it. Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364 (1876).

The rule with respect to infants under this section is equally applicable to incompetents. Mason v. Sorrell, 260 Ark. 27, 551 S.W.2d 184 (1976).

Attorneys were not negligent in failing to timely refile client's medical malpractice claim within the one-year time period allowed for refiling a claim under this section, where the law concerning timely refiling of a complaint after taking a nonsuit had not been settled. Pugh v. Griggs, 327 Ark. 577, 940 S.W.2d 445 (1997).

Where the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) failed to inform parents and their injured child about the BSA's insurance coverage and parents failed to include insurer in the suit before the statute of limitations ran, notice was imputed to the insurer; thus, under the circumstances, the second amended complaint related back to the filing of the original complaint and was not barred by the statute of limitations. Low v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 364 Ark. 427, 220 S.W.3d 670 (2005).

Applicability.

This section is not applicable to the betterment statute, which allows recovery of mesne profits for three years and contains no exception in favor of infants. Brown v. Nelms, 86 Ark. 368, 112 S.W. 373 (1908).

This section does not apply to the right under § 14-86-1503 to redeem land from tax sale. Gamble v. Phillips, 107 Ark. 561, 156 S.W. 177 (1913).

This section does not apply in an action for wrongful death. Anthony v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry., 108 Ark. 219, 157 S.W. 394 (1913).

The limitation of time fixed by a wrongful death statute is a limitation on the right of action and is an essential element of the right to sue; therefore, the general savings clause provision has no application to wrongful death actions. Sandusky v. First Elec. Coop., 266 Ark. 588, 587 S.W.2d 37 (1979).

This section applies only to action at common law and therefore does not operate to toll the statute of limitations for wrongful death actions, which always have been considered purely statutory. Crawford v. Martin Marietta Corp., 622 F.2d 339 (8th Cir. 1980).

This section applied to a suit for personal injuries brought by parents on behalf of their minor son, under a theory of breach of implied warranty of merchantability; that cause of action has its roots in the common law, even though it has been changed by the Uniform Commercial Code. Follette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1994).

A suit by a minor's guardian brought in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of the decedent is not protected by the provisions of subsection (a). Morrison v. Jennings, 328 Ark. 278, 943 S.W.2d 559 (1997), overruled in part, Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395, 430 S.W.3d 49 (2013).

The two-year statute of limitations and the tolling provision of § 16-114-203 supersede the three-year period that § 16-56-116 allows after a disability is removed for persons insane at the time the right of action accrued. Smith v. Diversicare Leasing Corp. of Am., 65 Ark. App. 138, 985 S.W.2d 749 (1999).

The repealer clause added to this section does not have the effect of repealing the specific savings statute enacted for minor children in § 16-114-203 of the Medical Malpractice Act. Shelton v. Fiser, 340 Ark. 89, 8 S.W.3d 557 (2000).

Wrongful death action filed against healthcare providers by a decedent's parents was void ab initio where the decedent had no personal representative and the complaint failed to include as a plaintiff the decedent's half-brother; hence, this section did not apply to allow the parents to add the half-brother after the limitations period had run. Andrews v. Air Evac EMS, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 161, 170 S.W.3d 303 (2004).

Accrual of Action.

Taking an appeal from a judgment confirming the settlement of a guardian is barred in one year and does not constitute the bringing of an action within this section. Nelson v. Cowling, 89 Ark. 334, 116 S.W. 890 (1909).

This statute did not bar action by ward against guardian for an accounting more than three years after attaining majority, where guardian had not been discharged. Young v. Young, 201 Ark. 984, 147 S.W.2d 736 (1941).

The running of the statute was not tolled by the fact that plaintiff was confined outside the state because he was not so confined when his cause of action accrued. Brown v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 987 (E.D. Ark. 1972), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 486 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. Ark. 1973).

Adoption.

The one-year statute of limitations in § 9-9-216(b)(1) provides a special procedure which cannot be annulled by ARCP 41(a) or this section, which allows an action dismissed without prejudice to be refiled within one year of the dismissal. In re Martindale, 327 Ark. 685, 940 S.W.2d 491 (1997).

Insanity.

Action by next friend to cancel deed executed seven years prior thereto was barred under evidence establishing that grantor for more than three years had not been incompetent to such an extent as to justify holding he did not have capacity to reason in respect to business matters and to appreciate their significance. Waggoner v. Atkins, 204 Ark. 264, 162 S.W.2d 55 (1942).

The right of an an insane person to redeem her property from tax sale is not lost by lapse of statutory time for redemption. Schuman v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495, 181 S.W.2d 470 (1944).

Where guardian of a mental incompetent sued to set aside a deed executed by the incompetent, guardian was not guilty of laches in view of the three year saving clause of this section. Zini v. First Nat'l Bank, 228 Ark. 325, 307 S.W.2d 874 (1957).

The statute of limitations on a personal injury action did not run against an incompetent even though a guardian of his estate had been appointed prior to accrual of the cause of action. Mason v. Sorrell, 260 Ark. 27, 551 S.W.2d 184 (1976).

When a person, by reason of the injury sustained, is incapable of managing his or her personal affairs, that individual may be regarded or classified as incompetent or “insane.” Phillips v. Sugrue, 800 F. Supp. 789 (E.D. Ark. 1992).

Where it was alleged that defendant intentionally took improper sexual liberties with plaintiff and indecently fondled her against her will and without her consent, it appeared likely that plaintiff may have sustained a disability that brought her within the provisions of this statute, adequate to raise a genuine issue of fact as to plaintiff's incompetency at the time of the accrual of the cause of action and as to when, if at all, the disability was removed. Phillips v. Sugrue, 800 F. Supp. 789 (E.D. Ark. 1992).

From an alleged victim's suit against his former scoutmaster and several others alleging damages resulting from sexual abuse he suffered 30 years before when he was 11 and 12 years old, judgment in favor of the scoutmaster was proper as repressed memory syndrome did not toll the statute of limitations under this section, and the alleged victim failed to show that the other parties fraudulently concealed facts, or even that they knew, about the scoutmaster's sexual abuse of the alleged victim. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415 (2009).

Minority.

A female attains full age at 18 years. Brake v. Sides, 95 Ark. 74, 128 S.W. 572 (1910); Shapard v. Mixon, 122 Ark. 530, 184 S.W. 399 (1916) (decided prior to 1975 amendment of § 9-25-101).

Action for seduction of an infant may be brought within three years after her majority though an action for same cause had been brought and dismissed for want of prosecution during her infancy. Darnell v. Lea, 162 Ark. 516, 258 S.W. 363 (1924).

Infant wards who brought suit within three years after majority were not barred from relief under this section. Wasson v. Treece, 189 Ark. 728, 75 S.W.2d 71 (1934).

Decree determining validity of title based on tax sale was valid and binding where minor defendants affected by it took no steps to void it within three years after having reached their majority. Cannon v. Price, 202 Ark. 464, 150 S.W.2d 755 (1941).

In action by heirs for cancelation of deed and an accounting in which two heirs were alleged to be minors, plea of limitations set up by defendant in motion for judgment on pleadings could not be considered. Story v. Cheatham, 217 Ark. 193, 229 S.W.2d 121 (1950).

Where plaintiff was under age of majority at the time his cause of action for treble damages under § 18-60-102 arose, this section rather than § 16-56-108 is controlling. Callaway v. Perdue, 238 Ark. 652, 385 S.W.2d 4 (1964).

A minor and his mother could maintain tort actions against the estate of decedent after the expiration of the statute of nonclaim when there was in force a policy of liability insurance on decedent's vehicle which policy has been depleted through the use of a bill of interpleader in the federal district court. Johnson v. Poore, 266 Ark. 601, 587 S.W.2d 44 (1979).

Where a wrongful death action was not filed by the minor children of a man killed in a construction accident until 15 years after the accident, the statute of limitations for the wrongful death action was not tolled during the minority of the plaintiffs and thus the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Crawford v. Martin Marietta Corp., 622 F.2d 339 (8th Cir. 1980).

Section 4-86-102 which governs causes of action based on strict liability creates a new right that was not available at common law, but does not contain a specific period of limitation; such actions are governed by the general statute of limitations applicable to all products liability cases in § 16-116-103. Therefore, this section operates to extend the time for minors to file a products liability action brought on a strict liability theory. Harris v. Standardized San. Sys., 658 F. Supp. 438 (W.D. Ark. 1987).

Probate section giving an illegitimate child 180 days to file a claim creates a new right, and the right is created for only 180 days. Boatman v. Dawkins, 294 Ark. 421, 743 S.W.2d 800 (1988).

Where child did not fall within either of the two exceptions for a minor's cause of action under § 16-114-203(c), the complaint brought on his behalf was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in § 16-114-203. Shelton v. Fiser, 340 Ark. 89, 8 S.W.3d 557 (2000).

—Burden of Proof.

Burden is on plaintiff to prove bringing of suit within three years after attaining his majority. Yell v. Lane, 41 Ark. 53 (1883).

—Homesteads.

That the homestead of a minor will deteriorate in value and will be insufficient to satisfy the claims against the estate if the right to sell is postponed until the minor reaches his majority and that judgments against the estate will be barred by the statute of limitations before that time constitute no valid reason for the sale of land while a minor's right of homestead in it exists. Henry v. Dollin, 195 Ark. 607, 113 S.W.2d 97 (1938).

This statute was held not to affect rule that when one dies seized of a homestead leaving as heirs minor children they have two separate and distinct estates in the land, existing at the same time and incapable of merger. Kitchens v. Wheeler, 200 Ark. 671, 141 S.W.2d 34 (1940).

Statute of Limitations.

Because a general statute must yield when there is a specific statute involving the particular subject matter, in a minor child's medical malpractice action, the two-year statute of limitations in § 16-114-203 applied rather than the three-year statute of limitation in this section. Shelton v. Fiser, 340 Ark. 89, 8 S.W.3d 557 (2000).

Tolling.

Dismissal of the patient's medical malpractice claim was appropriate, in part because her argument that § 16-56-116 allowed the tolling of the statute of limitations for those with disabilities was not presented to the circuit court. Thus, it could not be considered for the first time on appeal. Collins v. St. Vincent, 98 Ark. App. 190, 253 S.W.3d 26, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 902, 128 S. Ct. 233, 169 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2007).

Former wife's claims in her motion for contempt that a former husband failed to comply with certain provisions in their property settlement agreement was barred by the five-year statute of limitations in § 16-56-111 that applied to written contracts as the settlement was an independent contract that did not merge with the divorce decree. The husband's mental health problems were not sufficient to make him insane for purposes of tolling the statute under this section, and in any event, the wife, not the husband, was the one bringing the action. Wall v. Wall, 2011 Ark. App. 143 (2011).

Cited: Frakes v. Hunt, 266 Ark. 171, 583 S.W.2d 497 (1979); Eddleman v. Estate of Farmer, 294 Ark. 8, 740 S.W.2d 141 (1987); Linder v. Howard, 296 Ark. 414, 757 S.W.2d 549 (1988).