Dudas v. Dade County

385 So. 2d 1144
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 8, 1980
Docket80-25
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 1144 (Dudas v. Dade County) 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
Dudas v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

385 So.2d 1144 (1980)

Edward DUDAS and Grace Dudas, Appellants,
v.
DADE COUNTY, Florida, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-25.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 8, 1980.

Nat Gursten, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Michael Murphy, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBARD and DANIEL PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The question on this appeal is how long does a debtor have to question an account stated. The debtor argues that it is the time provided in the Statute of Limitations, which period may be extended by payments made on account pursuant to Section 95.051(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1975). We disagree.

An account stated comes into being when a creditor periodically bills a debtor for a certain amount, which amount is not objected to within a reasonable time. See: Daytona Bridge Company v. Bond, 47 Fla. 136, 36 So. 445 (1904); United Hardware-Furniture Company v. Blue, 59 Fla. 419, 52 So. 364 (1910); Rauzin v. Kupper, 139 So.2d 432 (Fla.3d DCA 1962). No objection to the account stated herein having been made by the debtor between the time the first statement was rendered in 1971 and February 9, 1977, when the instant suit was filed to seek a return of alleged over-payment on the original obligation, we find the objection comes too late. We approve the trial court's finding, as a matter of law, that no objection was made within a reasonable time. Martyn v. J.E. Arnold & Co., 36 Fla. 446, 18 So. 791 (1895); Daytona Bridge Company v. Bond, supra.

Therefore, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Brown v. Nationscredit Financial Services Corp.
32 So. 3d 661 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Morse, LLC v. United Wisconsin Life Insurance
356 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (S.D. Florida, 2005)
Mila v. Chiossi
664 So. 2d 1062 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Carole Korn Interiors, Inc. v. Goudie
573 So. 2d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
First Union Discount Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Milos
744 F. Supp. 1145 (S.D. Florida, 1990)
Page Avjet Corp. v. Cosgrove Aircraft Serv., Inc.
546 So. 2d 16 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Stratton of Florida, Inc. v. Rodel Fire Protection, Inc.
524 So. 2d 726 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Kelly Tractor Co.
518 So. 2d 991 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Levy v. Stephen L. Geller, Inc.
444 So. 2d 568 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
MERRILL-STEVENS DRY DOCK COMPANY v. Corniche Express
400 So. 2d 1286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
385 So. 2d 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudas-v-dade-county-fladistctapp-1980.