With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this claim should be barred by Tennessee’s “catch-all” ten-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(3). Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(3) sets forth a “general ten-year statute of limitations” for actions not otherwise addressed by Tennessee statutes involving time-related defenses. Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388, 390 (Tenn. 2006). There appears to have been some question, however, about whether the provision applies to actions to quiet title. See Wilson v. Ward, No. E2001-02177-COA-R3CV, 2003 WL 1626887, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2003) (party concedes that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110 does not apply to actions to quiet title, but court assumes arguendo that it does apply) (citing Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Patton, 134 Tenn. 556, 184 S.W. 855, 859-860 (1916) (<HOLDING>)). There is moreover some support in other

A: holding that a statute of limitations defense raised for the first time during trial was waived construing a previous version of federal rule of criminal procedure 12 that was not substantively different from the current version
B: holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
C: holding that version of tenyear catchall statute of limitations did not apply to action to quiettitle
D: holding tenyear statute of limitations applies to the tvpa and atca
C.