Helton v. Gunderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Helton v. Gunderson

708 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1998 WL 158846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2698

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 1029 (Helton v. Gunderson) 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

Helton v. Gunderson, 708 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1998 WL 158846 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find that the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice the counts of the plaintiffs complaint that were founded in oral contracts, fraud, and the taking of property as they are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, as the plaintiff properly concedes, this cause must be remanded for correction of a scrivener’s error because the order should have dismissed Counts II-XII.

Affirmed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find that the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice the counts of the plaintiffs complaint that were founded in oral contracts, fraud, and the taking of property as they are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, as the plaintiff properly concedes, this cause must be remanded for correction of a scrivener’s error because the order should have dismissed Counts II-XII.

Affirmed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1998 WL 158846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helton-v-gunderson-fladistctapp-1998.