Forbes v. Lehner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forbes v. Lehner

151 So. 3d 31, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17657, 2014 WL 5462525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

Docket3D13-2142

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 31 (Forbes v. Lehner) 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

Forbes v. Lehner, 151 So. 3d 31, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17657, 2014 WL 5462525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

Robin Forbes, as the successor trustee of two trusts, appeals the dismissal of his complaint in a “clawback” action against an attorney who represented the former trustees. The complaint alleges the former trustees used trust assets to pay the attorney contrary to a court order. The complaint was filed more than four years after the alleged payments were made. The trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.

Generally, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that should be raised in an answer to a complaint. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d)). There is an exception, however, if an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint. Swafford v. Schweitzer, 906 So.2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

In this case, the allegations in the complaint do not support the statute of limitations defense. To the contrary, the complaint contains allegations that suggest the statute of limitations did not bar the two causes of action that were pled. The trial court therefore erred in resolving the defense at the motion to dismiss stage. See Xavier v. Leviev Boymelgreen Marquis Developers, LLC, 117 So.3d 773, 775 *32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing the dismissal of a complaint due to the statute of limitations because the face of the complaint did not establish the defense). Whether the successor trustee’s claims will survive the defense when the record is more fully developed, either at summary judgment or trial, is a question left for another day.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

LOGUE, J.

Robin Forbes, as the successor trustee of two trusts, appeals the dismissal of his complaint in a “clawback” action against an attorney who represented the former trustees. The complaint alleges the former trustees used trust assets to pay the attorney contrary to a court order. The complaint was filed more than four years after the alleged payments were made. The trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.

Generally, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that should be raised in an answer to a complaint. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d)). There is an exception, however, if an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint. Swafford v. Schweitzer, 906 So.2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

In this case, the allegations in the complaint do not support the statute of limitations defense. To the contrary, the complaint contains allegations that suggest the statute of limitations did not bar the two causes of action that were pled. The trial court therefore erred in resolving the defense at the motion to dismiss stage. See Xavier v. Leviev Boymelgreen Marquis Developers, LLC, 117 So.3d 773, 775 *32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing the dismissal of a complaint due to the statute of limitations because the face of the complaint did not establish the defense). Whether the successor trustee’s claims will survive the defense when the record is more fully developed, either at summary judgment or trial, is a question left for another day.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 31, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17657, 2014 WL 5462525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-lehner-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack