DuBreuil v. James

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DuBreuil v. James

365 So. 2d 184, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1448

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 365 So. 2d 184 (DuBreuil v. James) 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

DuBreuil v. James, 365 So. 2d 184, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17103 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals a judgment dismissing his [185]*185counterclaim without leave to amend. Defendant was sued by the plaintiff-appellee for alleged fraud in a stock purchase agreement. Defendant attempted to set up a counterclaim in which he alleged that a promissory note he had previously paid to the plaintiff was made and paid under duress. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim upon the plaintiff’s motion which relied upon the applicable statute of limitations. Inasmuch as it affirmatively appears from the pleadings that the attempted counterclaim is permissive and not compulsory, see Barrett v. Pickard, 85 So.2d 630 (Fla.1956); McDonald Air Conditioning v. 1041 Corporation, 251 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.170(b), and that the time specified by the statute of limitations, Section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1973), had run, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals a judgment dismissing his [185]*185counterclaim without leave to amend. Defendant was sued by the plaintiff-appellee for alleged fraud in a stock purchase agreement. Defendant attempted to set up a counterclaim in which he alleged that a promissory note he had previously paid to the plaintiff was made and paid under duress. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim upon the plaintiff’s motion which relied upon the applicable statute of limitations. Inasmuch as it affirmatively appears from the pleadings that the attempted counterclaim is permissive and not compulsory, see Barrett v. Pickard, 85 So.2d 630 (Fla.1956); McDonald Air Conditioning v. 1041 Corporation, 251 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.170(b), and that the time specified by the statute of limitations, Section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1973), had run, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 So. 2d 184, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubreuil-v-james-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack