statute of limitations defense in Tennessee

2012We note, however, that the Petitioner anticipated the statute of limitations defense, contending in his petition that the statute of limitations should be tolled on due process grounds pursuant to Workman, 41 S.W.3d at 101-02 , and Freshwater v. State, 161 S.W.3d 548 (Tenn. Crim.

2010See Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001) (stating that the principles of due process may preclude the use of the statute of limitations to bar a coram nobis claim).

2016As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained: -6- It is well settled . . . that if the opposing party is given fair notice of the defense and an opportunity to rebut it, failure to specifically plead a statute of limitations defense will not result in a waiver. [Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Tenn. 1995)].

2016As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained: It is well settled . . . that if the opposing party is given fair notice of the defense and an opportunity to rebut it, failure to specifically plead a statute of limitations defense will not result in a waiver. [Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Tenn. 1995)].

2022“When the undisputed facts establish a statute of limitations defense, as they do here, the burden shifts to the plaintiff ‘to articulate at least a colorable basis for concluding that the statute of limitations has not run on his claims’ under an equitable doctrine such as the discovery rule.” Smith v. Hauck, 469 S.W.3d 564 , 571–72 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Redwing, 363 S.W.3d at 465 (applying this burden-shifting framework to a motion to dismiss)).

2021In considering a statute of limitations defense, we typically examine three interrelated elements: “the length of the limitations period, the accrual of the cause of action, and the applicability of any relevant tolling doctrines.” Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 456 (Tenn. 2012).

2018Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 144 (citing Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tenn. 2003)).

2017Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 144 (citing Harris, 102 S.W.3d at 593 ).

2024The petitioner, the Court noted, was not alleging factual innocence of the offense, and it concluded that intellectual disability did “not equate to actual innocence.” Id. at 612–13. 12 Coram nobis petitioners are “not entitled to equitable tolling to pursue a patently non-meritorious ground for relief.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 831 (quoting Harris II, 301 S.W.3d at 153 (Koch, J., concurring in part)). - 16 - Unlike Keen, we are not interpreting a statute; we are instead addressing a judge- made exception to the statute of limitations in error coram nobis cases.

2018Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 144 (citing Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tenn. 2003)).

2015“The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to prevent a defendant who has actively induced a plaintiff to delay filing suit from asserting a statute of limitations defense.” Hardcastle, 170 S.W.3d at 84 (citing Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Tenn. 2001)).

2008Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Tenn.2001); cf. Fairway Vill., 934 S.W.2d at 346 (explaining that equitable estoppel is less a tolling mechanism and more a doctrine used to prevent a party from relying on a statute of limitations defense).

2013See Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995); Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992).

2012Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001). “‘[B]efore a state may terminate a claim for failure to comply with procedural requirements such as statutes of limitations, due process requires that potential litigants be provided an opportunity for the presentation of claims at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. at 102 (quoting Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992)).

2022Managers, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 543, 553 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (involving a statute of limitations defense) (citing George v. Building Materials Corporation of America, 44 S.W.3d 481 , 486–87 (Tenn. 2001)).

2018Materials Corp. of Am., 44 S.W.3d 481, 486 (Tenn. 2001) (explaining that mere introduction of evidence regarding dates did not amount to trial of a statute of limitations defense by implied consent when the evidence was used to establish another issue at trial); Long v. Long, No. M2015-00592-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 9584393 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2015) (vacating an order regarding military retirement pay where the issues before the court were modification of alimony and child support, and although retirement pay was a factor to be considered with respect to those issues, no one asked the c

2018Revival is an appropriate response to a statute of limitations defense when a debtor has “revive[d] a plaintiff’s remedy that had been barred by the running of a statute of limitations either by expressly promising to pay the debt or by acknowledging the debt and expressing a willingness to pay it.” Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633-34 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (footnote omitted).

2006“Statements or conduct that support an estoppel claim include representations, made prior to the expiration of the limitations period, that the defendant either would not assert a statute of limitations defense or that the dispute would be amicably resolved without filing suit.” Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).

2004See Sample v. State, 82 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Tenn. 2002) (statute of limitations tolled due to a late arising suppression of exculpatory evidence claim); Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 477 (Tenn. 2001) (misrepresentation by attorney as to continuing representation, rather than mere attorney negligence, possibly tolled the statute of limitations); Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 278-79 (statute of limitations tolled due to mental incompetence 2 W e have previously expressed our concern with the State raising the statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal.

2001In Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001), our supreme court determined that “due process preclude[d] application of the statute of limitations to bar consideration of the writ of error coram nobis[.]” In Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001), our supreme court considered a situation similar to that of the instant case.

2021Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 771 S.W.2d 430, 433 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) and Ingram v. Elledge, No. 01-A-019101-CV- 00009, 1991 WL 83349 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 1991) in making this argument.

2005Sparks v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co., 771 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989).

2017See Wilson, 367 S.W.3d at 234 .

2017The State, however, is not deemed to have waived the defense, if the petitioner “‘is given fair notice of the defense and an opportunity to rebut it’ because ‘the purpose of the specific pleading requirement is to prevent a party from raising a defense at the last possible moment and thereby prejudicing the opposing party’s opportunity to rebut the defense.’” Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Tenn. 1995).

2015Dec. 22, 2003) (“When a defendant establishes their entitlement to a statute of limitations defense, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to establish an exception.”) (citing Smith v. Southeastern Props., Ltd., 776 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989)); Shaffer v. Memphis Airport Auth., Serv.

2015See Deal v. Hastings, No. W2003-00912-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 23100341 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2003) (“When a defendant establishes their entitlement to a statute of limitations defense, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to establish an exception.”) (citing Smith v. Southeastern Props., Ltd., 776 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)); Shaffer v. Memphis Airport Auth., Serv.

2013See Deal v. Hastings, No. W2003-00912-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 23100341 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2003) (“When a defendant establishes their entitlement to a statute of limitations defense, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to establish an exception.”) (citing Smith v. Southeastern Props., Ltd., 776 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Tenn. Ct. App.1989); Stockburger v. Rhea, 488 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972)).

2003Smith v. Southeastern Props., Ltd., 776 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Stockburger v. Rhea, 488 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

2022State v. Mixon, 983 SW2d 661, 670 (Tenn. 1999); Workman v. State, 41 SW3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001).

2014Id.

2016Accordingly, if the defense “is not pleaded within the proper time and in the proper manner, it is deemed waived and cannot be relied upon as a defense.” Steed Realty v. Oveisi, 823 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (citations omitted).

2016Accordingly, if the defense “is not pleaded within the proper time and in the proper manner, it is deemed waived and cannot be relied upon as a defense.” Steed Realty v. Oveisi, 823 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (citations omitted).

2016Co., 238 F.3d 772, 775 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to show that the statute of limitations has run.

2016Co., 238 F.3d 772, 775 (6th Cir. 2001) (―Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to show that the statute of limitations has run.

2016See Carr v. Borchers, 815 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (“Since . . . a statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense and no prima facie showing of the running of the statute of limitations is made by the record, the burden of establishing that the statute has run is upon the defendant.”); Campbell v. Grand Trunk Western R.

2016See Carr v. Borchers, 815 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (―Since . . . a statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense and no prima facie showing of the running of the statute of limitations is made by the record, the burden of establishing that the statute has run is upon the defendant.‖); Campbell v. Grand Trunk Western R.

2016“A statute of limitations defense challenges the sufficiency of a particular claim, not the subject matter jurisdiction of the court in which the claim is filed.” Estate of Brown, 402 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tenn. 2013) (citation omitted).

2016“A statute of limitations defense challenges the sufficiency of a particular claim, not the subject matter jurisdiction of the court in which the claim is filed.” Estate of Brown, 402 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tenn. 2013) (citation omitted).

2013We thus deem it premature, at this stage, to hold that the government has waived any possible procedural default defense.”); U.S. v. Burzynski Cancer Research Institute, 819 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that because the defendants initial motions were not “responsive,” the defendant had not waived their affirmative defense by failing to include it in the initial motions); Serrano v. Torres, 764 F.2d 47, 49 (1st Cir.1985) (“There is ... no requirement under Rule 12 to affirmatively raise the statute of limitations defense by motion.”); Bennett v. Mueller, 364 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal.2005)

2013We thus deem it premature, at this stage, to hold that the government has waived any possible procedural default defense.”); U.S. v. Burzynski Cancer Research Institute, 819 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that because the defendants initial motions were not “responsive,” the defendant had not waived their affirmative defense by failing to include it in the initial motions); Serrano v. Torres, 764 F.2d 47, 49 (1st Cir. 1985) (“There is . . . no requirement under Rule 12 to affirmatively raise the statute of limitations defense by motion.”); Bennett v. Mueller, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (C.D.

2013Accordingly, failure to raise an affirmative defense in a motion to dismiss does not mean that the defense has been waived.”); Daingerfield Island Protective Soc’y v. Lujan, 797 F.Supp. 25, 29 (D.D.C.1992) (“While it is the general practice to raise a statute of limitations defense by motion under Rule 12(b)(6), it is not an error to fail to do so.... [T]his defense cannot be waived by the failure to interpose it in a motion under Rule 12.”).

2013Accordingly, failure to raise an affirmative defense in a motion to dismiss does not mean that the defense has been waived.”); Daingerfield Island Protective Soc'y v. Lujan, 797 F.Supp. 25, 29 (D.D.C.1992) (“While it is the general practice to raise a statute of limitations defense by motion under Rule 12(b)(6), it is not an error to fail to do so . . . . [T]his defense cannot be waived by the failure to interpose it in a motion under Rule 12.”).

2012See Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690, 697 (Tenn. 1974). “[I]n Tennessee a defendant has a vested right in a statute of limitations defense if the cause of action has accrued and the -6- time allotted has expired.” Wyatt v. A-Best Products Co., Inc., 924 S.W.2d 98, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2001See Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690, 697 (Tenn. 1974). “[I]n Tennessee a defendant has a vested right in a statute of limitations defense if the cause of action has accrued and the time allotted has expired.” Wyatt v. A- Best Products Co., Inc., 924 S.W.2d 98, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2012See Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690, 697 (Tenn. 1974). “[I]n Tennessee a defendant has a vested right in a statute of limitations defense if the cause of action has accrued and the -6- time allotted has expired.” Wyatt v. A-Best Products Co., Inc., 924 S.W.2d 98, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2001See Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690, 697 (Tenn. 1974). “[I]n Tennessee a defendant has a vested right in a statute of limitations defense if the cause of action has accrued and the time allotted has expired.” Wyatt v. A- Best Products Co., Inc., 924 S.W.2d 98, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2011Coram nobis claims are “singularly fact-intensive” and “are not easily resolved on the face of the petition and often require a hearing.” Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 554 (Tenn. Crim.

2011Because coram nobis claims are “singularly fact-intensive,” they “are not easily resolved on the face of the petition and often require a hearing.” Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 554 (Tenn. Crim.

2015“The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to prevent a defendant who has actively induced a plaintiff to delay filing suit from asserting a statute of limitations defense.” Hardcastle, 170 S.W.3d at 84 (citing Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Tenn. 2001)).

2005Hite, 801 S.W.2d at 825 (citing Callahan v. Town of Middleton, 292 S.W.2d 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1954)). “[E]quitable estoppel may be applied to prevent a defendant who has actively induced a plaintiff to delay filing suit from asserting a statute of limitations defense.” Hardcastle v. Harris, 170 S.W.3d 67, 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2018Young v. Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536, 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that a statute of limitations defense is properly characterized as failure to state a claim).

2014Young v. Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (considering whether the statute of limitations defense was waived by failure to timely plead specific facts to support the defense).