will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier-of-fact to find the existence of any one of the claimant’s required proof elements; or (3) that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support the movant’s properly pleaded affirmative defense. Williams v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 16 S.W.3d 605, 610 (Mo.App.2000). Regardless of which of these three means is employed by the defending party, each establishes a right to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In this case, the respondents employed the third means, alleging facts in their motion, which they contend established the affirmative defenses of the running of the statute of limitations and laches. See Yahne v. Pettis County Sheriff Dep’t, 73 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo.App.2002) (<HOLDING>); Ewing v. Ewing, 901 S.W.2d 330, 334
holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that complaint need not anticipate statute of limitations which is an affirmative defense holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations holding that the statute of limitations in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the trial court