Auto Electric, Inc. v. Helton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Auto Electric, Inc. v. Helton

451 So. 2d 538, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13609

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1984

DocketNos. 83-2092, 83-2105

StatusPublished

This text of 451 So. 2d 538 (Auto Electric, Inc. v. Helton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auto Electric, Inc. v. Helton, 451 So. 2d 538, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13609 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek reversal of orders dismissing with prejudice their suits for replevin of promissory notes allegedly in possession of the appellees, defendants below.

In their complaints, plaintiffs alleged that the respective defendants lawfully received possession of the promissory notes in question on December 1, 1976, under an oral stock purchase agreement. They further alleged that when, through no fault of their own, a condition subsequent was not performed, they demanded possession of the notes. Plaintiffs asserted that at that time the defendants wrongfully withheld delivery. Prior to trial the court dismissed the causes of action on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs’ claims.

The statute of limitations for recovery of specific personal property is four years. § 95.11(3)(i), Fla.Stat.(1981). However, the statute does not begin to run until the last element constituting a cause of action occurs. § 95.031(1). At the time of dismissal, nothing in the pleadings indicated the date when defendants’ possession became wrongful. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ actions [539]*539without having evidence before it to determine the date when the statute commenced running.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate both cases.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek reversal of orders dismissing with prejudice their suits for replevin of promissory notes allegedly in possession of the appellees, defendants below.

In their complaints, plaintiffs alleged that the respective defendants lawfully received possession of the promissory notes in question on December 1, 1976, under an oral stock purchase agreement. They further alleged that when, through no fault of their own, a condition subsequent was not performed, they demanded possession of the notes. Plaintiffs asserted that at that time the defendants wrongfully withheld delivery. Prior to trial the court dismissed the causes of action on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs’ claims.

The statute of limitations for recovery of specific personal property is four years. § 95.11(3)(i), Fla.Stat.(1981). However, the statute does not begin to run until the last element constituting a cause of action occurs. § 95.031(1). At the time of dismissal, nothing in the pleadings indicated the date when defendants’ possession became wrongful. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ actions [539]*539without having evidence before it to determine the date when the statute commenced running.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate both cases.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 538, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-electric-inc-v-helton-fladistctapp-1984.