Opinion ID: 1730429
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The statute of limitations argument against Roomakers.

Text: The work and materials furnished by Roomakers were provided on February 9, 1978, and the amount owing therefor became due on March 10, 1978. Roomakers filed its lien statement on August 8, 1978, and filed its answer, crossclaim, and counter-claim on September 25, 1978. The counterclaim averred that the amount was past due and unpaid since July 31, 1978; the lien statement sought interest from July 31, 1978, but it also stated that payment therefor was due in full on to-wit: March 10, 1978. No parties filed responses to Roomakers' cross-claim, but First Federal filed a motion to alter or amend judgment which raised the statute of limitations. Both First Federal and Linda argue on appeal that their failure to raise this issue as an affirmative defense is excused because the expiration of the period did not appear on the face of the complaint. This alleged excuse does not circumvent waiver, however, for the simple reason that Roomakers' verified statement of lien was attached as an exhibit to the cross-claim. Because the statement did show the due date on its face, reasonable diligence would have led the parties to raise the statute of limitations defense. Therefore, the trial court properly overruled the post-judgment motions raising this issue.