Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.370 (2026)

Limitation not to apply to setoffs, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

516.370. Limitation not to apply to setoffs, when. — When a defendant in action has interposed an answer, as a defense, setoff or counterclaim, upon which he would be entitled to reply in such action, the remedy upon which, at the time of the commencement of such action, was not barred by law, and such complaint is dismissed, or the action is discontinued, the time which intervened between the commencement and the termination of such action shall not be deemed a part of the time limited for the commencement of an action by the defendant, to recover for the cause of action so interposed as a defense, setoff or counterclaim.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1041)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 889; 1919 § 1344; 1909 § 1915

(1987) With the exception of what might be considered to be purely defensive pleading such as a setoff or recoupment, a counterclaim which seeks affirmative relief by asserting a new cause of action like a medical malpractice, although arising out of the same occurrence and although not barred at the commencement of the plaintiff's action, is barred if the counterclaim is filed at a time when it would have been barred as an original action. Northwest Radiation Oncology v. Goodstal, 735 S.W.2d 762 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1966–2014 · leading case: Nw. Radiation Oncology v. Goodstal, 735 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nw. Radiation Oncology v. Goodstal, 735 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 22× “1172) [now § 516.370 RSMo 1986], which provides that, where the defendant in an action has interposed a counterclaim, the remedy upon which was not barred by law at the time of the commencement of the action, and the plaintiff’s action is discontinued, the time which intervened…”

Rebecca J. Davison v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 449 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “230 is not applicable to “all” civil actions.”

Yahne v. Pettis Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 73 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). “010 to § 516.370 shall not extend to any action which is or shall be limited by any statute; but such action shall be brought within the time limited by such statute.”

Stine v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 564 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “’ The limited application of this provision is attested to by our decisions, prior to the enactment of the nonsuit saving provision for wrongful death actions . . . that it was not applicable to such actions brought under the Missouri act.”

Eisele v. Meyers, 929 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Finally, the Meyerses cite § 516.370, RSMo 1994, which says: When a defendant in action has interposed an answer, as a defense, setoff or counterclaim, upon which he would be entitled to reply in such action, the remedy upon which, at the time of the commencement of such action,…”

St. Louis Univ. v. Belleville, 752 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “010 to § 516.370, and the plaintiff therein suffer a nonsuit, .”

Cooper v. Bolin, 431 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 2× “The legislature then passed what is now Section 516.370, V.A.M.S., providing that in such cases “the time which intervened between the commencement and the termination of such action shall not be deemed a part of the time limited for the commencement of an action by the…”

Dane ex rel. Dane v. Cozean, 584 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “010 to § 516.370 and the plaintiff therein suffer a nonsuit such plaintiff may commence a new action from time to time within one year after such nonsuit suffered .”

Boggs v. Farmers State Bank of Texas Cnty., 846 S.W.2d 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “010 to § 516.370.” Id. at 324. Section 362.730 carries its own built-in statute of limitation as the title plainly *236 reveals by the word “limitation.”

Toomes v. Cont'l Oil Co., 402 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. 1966). “-010 to § 516.370. See Frazee v. Partney, Mo.Sup.”

Deane v. S.F. Pizza, Inc., 229 S.W.3d 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). “, as defendant, § 516.370 does not apply; that the second suit is not a refiling of the original suit, but a new suit brought against a different defendant.”

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.