Genesis 12 v. Swindle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Genesis 12 v. Swindle

583 So. 2d 435, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8210, 1991 WL 150402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1991

DocketNo. 90-03481

StatusPublished

This text of 583 So. 2d 435 (Genesis 12 v. Swindle) 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

Genesis 12 v. Swindle, 583 So. 2d 435, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8210, 1991 WL 150402 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in this suit for money owed under a contract. We reverse because under the principles applicable to summary judgment proceedings there is a question of fact as to when payment was due under the contract. That question is determinative of whether the statute of limitations, which defendants have pleaded, ran.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in this suit for money owed under a contract. We reverse because under the principles applicable to summary judgment proceedings there is a question of fact as to when payment was due under the contract. That question is determinative of whether the statute of limitations, which defendants have pleaded, ran.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 So. 2d 435, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8210, 1991 WL 150402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genesis-12-v-swindle-fladistctapp-1991.