Bradbury v. Fuller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bradbury v. Fuller

385 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16650

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1980

DocketNo. 79-4/T4-348

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 7 (Bradbury v. Fuller) 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

Bradbury v. Fuller, 385 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Robert K. Bradbury, appeals an order of the trial court granting, with prejudice, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The order granting the motion to dismiss recites that the complaint shows on its face that plaintiff’s action is barred by section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1977). Plaintiff contends there are theories available to plaintiff which would not be barred by section 95.11 and suggests among others the theory of a resulting trust.

A beneficiary of a resulting trust is not bound to act until the trustee repudiates the trust or begins to hold the property adversely with knowledge on the part of the beneficiary. Smith v Reddish, 113 Fla. 20, 151 So. 273 (1933); Anderson v. Northop, 30 Fla. 612, 12 So. 318 (1892); Peacock v. Firman, 177 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 183 So.2d 215 (Fla.1965).

We cannot say that plaintiff will be able to state a cause of action not barred by the statute of limitations. However, he should be given the opportunity to amend his complaint. Fla.R.Civ. P. 1.010; Town of Coreytown v. State, 60 So.2d 482 (Fla.1952).

REVERSED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., and WATSON, RICHARD O., Associate Judge, concur.

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