Can a Mississippi county pay a 14-year-old back-tax claim from a city, or does the three-year statute of limitations bar it?

Plain-English summary

The Madison County Board of Supervisors discovered that the County tax collector had failed to remit certain ad valorem tax commissions to the City of Canton for fiscal years 2008 through 2022. The remittances were required under three separate interlocal agreements between the County and the City. The unpaid period stretches back roughly 14 years.

The County's attorney asked the AG: is the County prohibited from paying these old claims by Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations in § 15-1-49 (the residual statute of limitations for actions with no other prescribed limitation period)?

The AG said no.

Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution has the controlling rule: "Statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the State, or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof." § 15-1-51 says the same thing. The Mississippi Supreme Court in Jones County School District v. Department of Revenue, 111 So. 3d 588, 607 (Miss. 2013), held that Section 104 applies even in a suit between two governmental entities. So a city's claim against a county for unpaid tax-distribution amounts is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations.

This is essentially the companion ruling to the Compton opinion issued the next day to Lauderdale County School District. Both confirm the same constitutional rule: when one Mississippi political subdivision owes another, time alone doesn't extinguish the claim.

A few procedural notes from the AG:
- AG opinions are limited to prospective questions of state law (§ 7-5-25). The AG cannot validate or invalidate past actions.
- The AG offered no opinion on whether Madison County actually owes Canton money, or how much. Those are factual questions for the local boards.
- The opinion is limited to the legal question of whether the three-year statute of limitations would bar the claim if it is otherwise valid.

So practical takeaway: the legal door is open; the County and the City should reconcile the actual amounts owed and pay what is supported by the records, without worrying about a time-bar.

What this means for you

If you are a Mississippi county attorney facing an old intergovernmental claim

Don't reach for § 15-1-49. Section 104 overrides it. If your county has been underpaying a city or school district for years, the legal claim is open-ended. Focus on factual reconciliation: what the records show was owed, what was actually paid, and the difference. Document the analysis carefully because the underlying factual question is what matters.

If you are a Mississippi municipal attorney

Section 104 protects your municipality's claims against counties or other political subdivisions. If you discover a multi-year underpayment owed to your city, statutes of limitations are not your problem. The harder problem is usually proving the underpayment with records that are old enough to have been moved, lost, or recalculated.

If you are a county or city tax collector

This kind of issue often surfaces during an audit or transition. Annual reconciliations of all interlocal agreements (and statutory distributions to municipalities and school districts) can prevent multi-year backlogs. When the county or city changes administrators, do a full intergovernmental obligation review.

If you are at the State Auditor's office

The 2008-2022 underpayment in Madison County is exactly the kind of finding that often comes from State Auditor reviews. The Technical Assistance Division can help with reconciling old years of distributions.

If you are a Mississippi taxpayer

Section 104 affects you indirectly. If your city or county discovers a years-old underpayment from another political subdivision, the recovered funds eventually flow back into local budgets. The reconciliation may also surface broader administrative issues that the local elected officials and auditor will need to address.

If you are a Mississippi state legislator

Section 104 is a constitutional rule, so changing it requires a constitutional amendment. The policy question that periodically comes up: should there be some outer time limit on intergovernmental claims to encourage timely reconciliation? That's a difficult amendment to draft and pass, and it has not been a legislative priority. Most legislators see Section 104 as protecting public funds.

Common questions

Q: What is Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution?
A: It provides: "Statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the State, or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof." It's a constitutional rule that protects governmental claimants from time-bars.

Q: How does this differ from the Compton opinion?
A: It doesn't, really. Compton was issued the next day to Lauderdale County School District (a school district claim against a county). Espy is a city's claim against a county. Both apply Section 104 the same way: no statute of limitations runs against the political subdivision asserting the claim.

Q: Could Madison County refuse to pay on grounds other than the statute of limitations?
A: Yes. The County can dispute whether the underpayments actually occurred, dispute the amounts, or dispute whether the interlocal agreements are valid. The AG opinion doesn't address those substantive questions. It only addresses the time-bar question.

Q: What about laches (delay-based defense)?
A: Mississippi courts have held that laches generally cannot be asserted against the state in matters affecting the public interest. See, e.g., Hill v. Thompson, 564 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1989) (laches generally not applicable against the state in matters of public concern). The interplay of laches and Section 104 in intergovernmental claims has not been fully developed by the courts. This opinion does not address laches.

Q: What's an interlocal agreement?
A: Mississippi's Interlocal Cooperation Act (Miss. Code Ann. §§ 17-13-1 et seq.) lets two or more local government units enter agreements for joint exercise of any power they share. Counties and cities use interlocal agreements for everything from joint road work to tax collection arrangements. Madison County and Canton apparently had three such agreements covering ad valorem tax commission distributions.

Q: Why is the three-year statute of limitations even relevant here?
A: § 15-1-49 is the residual three-year limit for civil claims with no other prescribed period. The City's claim doesn't fit a more specific statutory period (contract, tort, etc.), so § 15-1-49 would normally apply absent Section 104.

Q: Does this rule apply to claims by private parties against the government?
A: No. Section 104 only protects claims by the state or its subdivisions. Claims against the government are subject to their own (often shorter) time limits, including notice requirements under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act and various jurisdiction-specific rules.

Q: What if the County had already paid Canton based on a now-disputed calculation method?
A: The AG explicitly declined to opine on past payments or the validity of past actions. Whether prior payments were correct, sufficient, or otherwise resolved the obligation is a factual matter for the parties and, if needed, the courts.

Background and statutory framework

Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution is a relatively unusual constitutional provision nationally. Most states either don't have an express anti-limitations rule for governmental claimants, or rely on common-law principles like nullum tempus occurrit regi ("time does not run against the king"). Mississippi's drafters codified the principle in the constitution itself.

The constitutional text:

Statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the State, or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof.

The companion statute, § 15-1-51, says the same thing in code form.

The doctrine has practical bite in two recurring situations:

1. Intergovernmental obligations. When one Mississippi political subdivision owes another, time-bars don't apply.
2. Government claims against private parties. When the state pursues a tax obligation, contractual default, or restitution claim against a private party, the private party generally cannot raise a limitations defense.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has applied Section 104 expansively. Jones County School District v. Department of Revenue, 111 So. 3d 588 (Miss. 2013), addressed a state-vs-state-agency-of-sorts dispute and confirmed that Section 104 applies "even in a suit between governmental entities."

The pair of February 2024 opinions (Espy and Compton) represent the AG's standard treatment of the question. When a Mississippi political subdivision discovers it is owed money by another political subdivision, the legal time-bar question is settled. The harder questions are factual reconciliation, accounting, and the administrative or political will to actually settle up.

The procedural framing is also typical:
- The AG won't tell the County whether the underpayment actually occurred (factual question).
- The AG won't tell the County what the right amount is (factual question).
- The AG will tell the County that, if there is an underpayment, no statute of limitations bars its payment.

Citations and references

Constitution:
- Miss. Const. § 104 (statutes of limitation do not run against the state or political subdivisions)

Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (AG opinion authority)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (three-year residual statute of limitations for civil actions)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-51 (statutes of limitations do not run against the state)

Cases:
- Jones Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Revenue, 111 So. 3d 588 (Miss. 2013) (Section 104 applies in suits between governmental entities)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/M.Espy-February-7-2024-Statutes-of-Limitation-and-Governmental-Entities.pdf

Original opinion text

February 7, 2024

Mike Espy, Esq.
Attorney, Madison County Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 608
Canton, Mississippi 39046

Re: Statutes of Limitation and Governmental Entities

Dear Mr. Espy:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Background

According to your request, it has come to the attention of the Madison County Board of Supervisors that the county tax collector failed to remit certain ad valorem tax commissions to the city of Canton for the fiscal years 2008-2022. These remittances were required under three separate interlocal agreements. Citing Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-49, which provides a three-year statute of limitation for all actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed, and Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution, which provides that statutes of limitation in civil cases do not run against the state or political subdivisions, you seek clarity on the applicable statute of limitation.

Question Presented

Is the Madison County Board of Supervisors prohibited by Section 15-1-49, or any other applicable statute, from paying a claim dating back to 2008 for taxes owed to the city of Canton pursuant to an interlocal agreement?

Brief Response

Pursuant to Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution, statutes of limitation do not run against the state or political subdivisions. Thus, the three-year statute of limitation in Section 15-1-49 for actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed would not apply to a claim by a municipality against a county.

Applicable Law and Discussion

As an initial matter, opinions of this office are limited to prospective questions of state law. Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25. This office cannot validate or invalidate past actions. Therefore, we offer no opinion on prior payments or the validity or amount of the alleged taxes owed by Madison County to the city of Canton. This opinion is limited to the applicability of the three-year statute of limitation to claims between governmental entities.

Section 104 of the Mississippi Constitution provides: "Statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the State, or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof." See also Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-51. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that Section 104 applies even in a suit between governmental entities. Jones Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Revenue, 111 So. 3d 588, 607 (Miss. 2013). Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that the three-year statute of limitation in Section 15-1-49 for actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed would not apply to a claim by a municipality against a county for taxes collected pursuant to an interlocal agreement.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Beebe Garrard
Beebe Garrard
Special Assistant Attorney General