Opinion ID: 1791267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred by failing to dismiss Langham's claims as being barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Text: ¶ 8. The Patrol contends that in a situation such as this where there is no set statute of limitations, Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (1995) establishes a three-year catch-all statute of limitations. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-51 (1995) states that the statute starts to run in favor of the state,... when the plaintiff first had the right to demand payment ... Following this logic, it is apparent that Langham's claims would be barred since she first could have demanded payment in 1989. ¶ 9. However, there are a couple of theories which lend credence to Langham's belief in a ten-year statute of limitations. Langham's first argument is that Patrol's retirement system is a trust as per 26 U.S.C. § 401(a) of the federal tax laws, and as such is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations under Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-39 (1995). Langham also cites Monroe County Bd. of Educ. v. Rye, 521 So.2d 900, 908 (Miss.1988) which held that the state and its political subdivisions, under the proper circumstances, may be equitably estopped. ¶ 10. The second theory is the strongest. In 1990, the Patrol automatically increased Langham's benefits pursuant to a previous statutory amendment. She did not have to submit a supplemental application or otherwise lift a finger to obtain the increase in benefits. Langham avers that Patrol, having greater knowledge about its retirement system and having formerly aided her in obtaining benefits and increases under the system, had a duty to inform her of the July 1989 increase in survivor benefits. Having not been told otherwise, Langham could reasonably believe that the Patrol would always inform her of any change in her benefits. Indeed, it seems that the Patrol had made it its duty at one point to give any increase in benefits to survivors and it certainly would have notified survivors of any decrease in their benefits. If it is true that the Patrol has undertaken a duty, equitable estoppel would prevent the running of the statute of limitations from hindering Langham in her attempt to receive the statutory benefits increases. ¶ 11. The decision of the trial court is affirmed as to the statute of limitations.