distinction between a survival statute and a statute of limitations as follows: [A] statute of limitations affects the time that a stale claim may be brought while a survival statute gives life for a limited time to a right or claim that would have been destroyed entirely but for the statute. These survival statutes arbitrarily extend the life of the corporation to allow remedies connected with the corporation’s existence to be asserted. M.S. v. Dinkytown Day Care Center, Inc., 485 N.W.2d 587, 589 (S.D.1992) (quoting Davis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insur. Co., 727 F.Supp. 549 (D.S.D.1989)). Thus, courts have uniformly held that corporate survival statutes begin to run at the date of dissolution and have dismissed claims initiated outside of the prescribed period. See e.g., Id. at 588 (<HOLDING>); Canadian Ace Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch,
holding that minority tolling statute did not apply to extend time provided under corporate survival statute holding that tolling statute applicable to those disabled by minority or mental illness continues to operate regardless of guardians appointment holding that rule 60b was not applicable to extend the time to file an action to revoke a discharge under grounds of mistake and not addressing equitable tolling holding that because purpose of tolling statute is to remedy problem of locating a nonresident defendant before expiration of statute of limitations tolling statute does not apply to adverse possession action because of statutory scheme allowing for service by publication on parties outside state in such actions recognizing that the dead mans statute is a survival from an earlier and much broader incompetency statute and characterizing its survival as deplorable