Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.280 (2026)
Limitation not to be extended by improper acts of defendant
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
516.280. Limitation not to be extended by improper acts of defendant. — If any person, by absconding or concealing himself, or by any other improper act, prevent the commencement of an action, such action may be commenced within the time herein limited, after the commencement of such action shall have ceased to be so prevented.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 1031)
Prior revisions: 1929 § 879; 1919 § 1334; 1909 § 1905
(1968) This section is statutory authority for the proposition that fraudulent concealment of a cause of action is an improper act which, if established, will toll the running of limitations under section 516.140, RSMo. Smile v. Lawson (Mo.), 435 S.W.2d 325; Kauchick v. Williams (Mo.), 435 S.W.2d 342.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Smile v. Lawson, 435 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. 1968).
Smile v. Lawson, 435 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. 1968). “In connection with a trial herein, it should be pointed out that proof of actual knowledge on the part of the defendant is necessary before fraudulent misrepresentation under § 516.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., may be found.”
State of Missouri ex rel. Bob T. Beisly II, Relator v. The Honorable Timothy Perigo, 469 S.W.3d 434 (Mo. 2015). “100’s limitations period and (2) when the family’s cause of action accrued. Id. at 917 . With respect to tolling, this Court determined the wrongful death statute contained a special statute of limitation.”
T.B. III v. N.B. & State of Missouri, Dep't of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support Div., 478 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “Accordingly, the court applied Section 516.280, RSMo,- (2000), which tolls the statute of limitations when a wrongdoer fraudulently conceals his' actions and begins running the applicable statutory limitations period from the date of discovery.”
Ellison v. Fry, 437 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. 2014). “Although they do not identify a specific statutory basis for this extension, Susan and David implicitly are referring to section 516.280, the general tolling statute, 7 which sets out a “discovery rule” for cases in which a defendant conceals the wrong.”
State ex rel. Heart of Am. Council, Boy Scouts of Am. & Boy Scouts of Am., Relators v. The Honorable Charles H. McKenzie, 484 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. 2016). “140 but argues that the statutes of limitations on his claims for negligence and battery should be tolled under section 516.280. That section states: “If any person, by absconding or concealing himself, or by any other' improper act, prevent the commencement of an action, such…”
Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. 2015). “Section 516.280 provides that, “[i]f any person, by absconding or concealing himself,.”
Hershley v. Brown, 655 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “It is well established that fraudulent concealment of medical malpractice constitutes an improper act under § 516.280, [5] and that that section may be applied to toll the running of § 516.”
Kauchick v. Williams, 435 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. 1968). “I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion and in what is said therein except language indicating that mere silence on the part of the physician may constitute a wrongful act under § 516.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., which will toll the application of the limitation…”
M & D Enter., Inc. v. Wolff, 923 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “hich did not occur until the conclusion of the underlying claim against Carboline; (2) the statute of limitations could not have commenced running until the last item of damage suffered by Plaintiffs had accrued which also would have been when the underlying claims were settled;…”
Swope v. Printz, 468 S.W.2d 34 (Mo. 1971). “2d 316 , 2 and invoke the tolling effect of § 516.280, 3 plaintiffs alleged that they did not become aware of the results and consequences of defendant’s negligence until several months had passed following the operation, although they had sought to obtain information concerning…”
DeRousse v. PPG Indus., Inc., 598 S.W.2d 106 (Mo. 1980). “” § 516.280, RSMo 1978; § 879, RSMo 1929; § 1334, RSMo 1919.”
Roberts v. BJC Health Sys., 391 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. 2013). “Section 516.280, RSMo 2000. If further litigation establishes conclusively that the plaintiffs’ claim of potential liability is in fact purely speculative, then an appropriate judgment could be entered at that time.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.