With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 516.120. Laches requires that a party with knowledge of facts that give rise to his or her rights unreasonably delays asserting those rights for an excessive period of time and the other party suffers legal detriment due to the delay. Nahn v. Soffer, 824 S.W.2d 442, 444-45 (Mo.App. E.D.1991). If the doctrine of laches applies in a particular case depends on the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, how the delay affected the other party, and the overall fairness in permitting the assertion of the claim. Id. KPC contends plaintiffs action accrued when she became aware that her ownership of stock was disputed and KPC took hostile action regarding her status as a shareholder. See Sharon v. Kansas City Granite & Monument Co., 233 Mo.App. 547, 125 S.W.2d 959, 963 (K.C.Dist.l939)(<HOLDING>); Maynard v. Doe Run Lead Co., 305 Mo. 356, 265

A: holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability
B: holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run
C: holding that where oral loan was silent as to the time of repayment the statute of limitations began to run at the time the contract was made
D: holding the statute of limitations began to operate when the plaintiff was notified by an unequivocal act that plaintiffs right to the stock was disputed
D.