State of Missouri ex rel. Bob T. Beisly II, Relator v. The Honorable Timothy Perigo
2015 Mo. LEXIS 149
Mo.2015Background
- In July 2009 Belinda Beisly was murdered; her death was ruled a homicide. The perpetrators were unknown until February 2013, when Bob T. Beisly II (Relator) and Jeremy Maples were criminally charged.
- On February 13, 2013 Wilma Irwin (decedent’s mother) filed a wrongful death suit alleging Relator and Maples conspired, concealed evidence, lied to investigators, staged the scene, and used an untraceable weapon.
- Relator moved to dismiss under Missouri’s wrongful-death statute of limitations (§ 537.100), arguing Irwin filed more than three years after death.
- Irwin opposed, asserting fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel prevented Relator from invoking the statute of limitations.
- The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss as unconscionable; Relator sought a writ of prohibition. The Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer and quashed the preliminary writ, holding equitable estoppel barred the statute-of-limitations defense due to fraudulent concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a wrongful-death cause of action accrue? | Accrual was delayed until discoverability of the perpetrators (after arrests). | Accrues at decedent’s death; statute began running then (Frazee). | Court: accrual remains at death for § 537.100 (Frazee still good law). |
| Can fraudulent concealment/equitable estoppel bar statute-of-limitations defense under § 537.100? | Beisly’s concealment prevented timely suit; equitable estoppel prevents defendant from profiting from fraud. | Such an equitable exception would improperly engraft a tolling rule onto a special statute; only legislature may add exceptions. | Court: equitable estoppel (based on common-law maxim) precludes Relator from asserting § 537.100 as a defense when fraudulent concealment is proven. |
| Is applying equitable estoppel a violation of separation of powers or impermissible judicial amendment of the statute? | N/A (Plaintiff seeks equitable relief to prevent injustice). | Relator: courts cannot create exceptions to a special statute of limitations — that is legislative prerogative. | Court: Applying equitable estoppel does not “toll” or rewrite § 537.100; it simply bars a wrongdoer from asserting the statutory defense; within judicial power. |
| Appropriateness of writ of prohibition to force dismissal | N/A (plaintiff seeks to proceed). | Relator sought prohibition to compel dismissal for being time-barred. | Court: Writ denied (quashed); circuit court did not abuse discretion in overruling dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glus v. Brooklyn E. Dist. Terminal, 359 U.S. 231 (1959) (federal recognition that equitable estoppel can prevent use of statute of limitations where defendant’s conduct induced plaintiff’s delay).
- Frazee v. Partney, 314 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. 1958) (Missouri case holding wrongful-death causes accrue at death and special statute § 537.100 cannot be tolled by fraudulent concealment).
- O’Grady v. Brown, 654 S.W.2d 904 (Mo. banc 1983) (construing Wrongful Death Act purposively and directing remedial, not strict, construction).
- Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. banc 1998) (explaining equitable estoppel requires affirmative acts inducing delay; absence of such acts defeats estoppel).
- Boland v. Saint Luke’s Health Sys., Inc., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. banc 2015) (state supreme court decision addressing interplay of equitable doctrines and § 537.100; cited in dissents and discussion of precedent).