Opinion ID: 1695472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the chancellor commit error in his calculations of off-setting the loans between the parties, thereby refusing to award relief to the cross-appellant for debts owed by cross-appellee?

Text: Much of the testimony at trial concerned money allegedly loaned by the parties to each other. Jett loaned David money and made purchases for him. She claimed these loans and purchases were business loans. David also alleged unpaid loans to Jett. Finding that Jett's claim and David's counter-claim for debts were practically equal, the chancellor denied both parties' claims for judgment for debts against each other. As the chancellor was not manifestly in error in his findings of fact, his ruling on the debts will not be disturbed by this Court. David made an additional argument that Jett's monetary claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Section 15-1-29 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 1994) provides, in part: [A]ctions on open account or account stated not acknowledged in writing, signed by the debtor, and on any unwritten contract, express or implied, shall be commenced within three (3) years next after such cause of action accrued, and not after... . Jett claimed that some of her loans to David occurred in February and March of 1988. Jett made demand for repayment as early as April 27, 1988, as evidenced by a collection demand letter she sent to David. However, since Jett did not file her original complaint, which included her claim for these debts, until October 2, 1991, David asserted that the debts were barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations defense was raised in his Answer but was not raised at trial in the form of evidence. David also merely replied as appellee with regard to the affirmative defense and did not raise the issue in his cross-appeal. As the Chancellor's finding regarding the loans was a proper equitable disposition, it will not be disturbed and we do not address the statute of limitations issue today. We affirm this holding.