Opinion ID: 2293326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Affirmative Defenses

Text: Because § 12-309 and statutes of limitations provide affirmative defenses, Civil Rule 8(c) requires them to be set forth affirmatively in the answer to the complaint, [10] and they may be waived if not promptly pleaded. [11] The District ran the risk of waiver in this case, as it neglected to assert either defense in its answer to the amended complaint and waited two years before raising the defenses for the first time in its summary judgment motion. Nonetheless, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting appellant's waiver claim. We have held that, absent unfair surprise or other substantial prejudice to the plaintiff, or interference with the administration of justice, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense in a pre-trial motion despite having neglected to assert it in answer to the complaint. [12] Appellant had and exercised a full and fair opportunity [13] to respond to the District's tardy invocation of the statutes of limitations and § 12-309, and he has not shown that he was unfairly disadvantaged in any other respect. We conclude that [t]here was no prejudice and hence no waiver. [14]