Opinion ID: 865659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the statute of limitations has run and

Text: THE HEIRS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED. ¶8. The heirs contend that the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations had run against them. Having reviewed the record, we agree the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and reverse the trial court. ¶9. The heirs allege that Tullos engaged in an act of fraudulent concealment when he indicated in the memo line of the checks given to them that the land was being sold to Pittman. In Mississippi, a claim of fraud has a three-year statute of limitations. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (Rev. 2003); Sanderson Farms Inc. v. Ballard, 917 So. 2d 783 (Miss. 2005). 5 ¶10. The heirs signed over the property in question to Pittman on August 21, 2000. Pittman deeded the property to Tullos on April 10, 2002. The heirs filed suit on April 8, 2005. Neither party disputes that a three-year statute of limitations applies to the heirs’ claims. However, the heirs contend that the statute of limitations began to run on April 10, 2002, while the defendants claim that the statute began to run on August 21, 2000. ¶11. The heirs assert that the ultimate purchase of the property by Eugene Tullos through Pittman was concealed fraudulently in an attempt to obtain the property at a value less than what the property was actually worth. According to the assertions in the heirs’ complaint, they had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing until they discovered the April 2002 deed to Tullos. ¶12. The trial court found that the heirs failed to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking knowledge of the defendants’ alleged fraudulent conduct. ¶13. The plaintiffs allege that their fraud claim could not have accrued prior to April 10, 2002. It is a factual issue as to whether the heirs exercised reasonable dilligence and first discovered the alleged fraud on April 10, 2002. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-67 (Rev. 2003). Thus, absent proof of any other knowledge the plaintiffs may have had regarding the alleged fraud, the statute of limitations began to run on April 10, 2002, and the plaintiffs’ April 8, 2005, complaint was timely filed within the three-year limitation period.