Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

446 So. 2d 39

Baker v. Ball

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 10, 1984

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1984-02-10

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1991

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and must be so pleaded.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including MacWillie v. Southeast Alabama Gas Dist.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-02-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing Wilmer E. Baker's action for damages for alleged negligence of attorney E.E. Ball in and about the handling of matters for Baker as a client of Ball.

¶3Ball filed a Rule 12 (b)(6), ARCP, motion in response to Baker's complaints. The trial court granted the motion and denied Baker's motion to reconsider.

¶4Although we need not address the issue, the trial court based its ruling upon the one-year statute of limitations applicable to torts in general. This was a negligence action against an attorney. The complaint is sufficient to withstand a 12 (b)(6) motion. Under the present rules of pleading, dismissal of the action was error. Rule 8 (a), ARCP.

¶5The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and must be so pleaded. Rule 8 (c), ARCP.

¶6The applicable statute of limitations is six years. § 6-2-34, Code 1975. The action was filed well within that time period.

¶7For the reasons stated, the judgment below must be and it is hereby, reversed.

¶8REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶9TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

¶10JONES, J., not sitting.

/446/so2d/39 · .json · Public domain