pertaining to procedural matters are enforced in the same manner as a Supreme Court rule as long as the procedural matter addressed is not inconsistent with a Supreme Court rule. State v. Teer, 275 S.W.3d 258, 264 (Mo. banc 2009); see also Mo. Const art. V, § 5 (granting the Supreme Court power to “establish rules relating to practice, procedure and pleading for all courts and administrative tribunals, which shall have the force and effect of law”); Gillespie v. Rice, 224 S.W.3d 608, 612 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (“Missouri Supreme Court Rules are to be given the same effect as statutes.... ”). The application of a statute of limitations “must be specifically asserted by the time the case is decided.” Reynolds, 323 S.W.3d at 453; see also Patel v. Pate, 128 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (<HOLDING>). “The trial court ha[s] no obligation to rule
recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that the plaintiffs reply to the defendants motion to dismiss which did not allege a specific date of discovery was still sufficient to establish a potential defense to the statute of limitations holding that a statute of limitations defense first raised in a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs evidence was untimely holding that a defendant who fails to raise statute of limitations defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or by requesting a jury instruction on limitations if there is some evidence that the prosecution is limitationsbarred waives that defense