Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc.

389 So. 2d 690, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17501

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 1980

DocketNo. 79-938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 389 So. 2d 690 (Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc.) 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

Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc., 389 So. 2d 690, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17501 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed appellant’s claim on a promissory note with prejudice on the grounds that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations should be set out as an affirmative defense, although the defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss if the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint. Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corporation, 353 So.2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In this case, we do not believe appellant’s pleadings revealed on their face that her claim was barred. In our view the pleadings sufficiently alleged the existence of a valid note, an agreement to extend the due date on the note, and a failure to pay the note within the extended period. Any matters going to the validity of the note or the extension thereof should be affirmatively set out as defenses to the claim.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed appellant’s claim on a promissory note with prejudice on the grounds that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations should be set out as an affirmative defense, although the defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss if the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint. Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corporation, 353 So.2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In this case, we do not believe appellant’s pleadings revealed on their face that her claim was barred. In our view the pleadings sufficiently alleged the existence of a valid note, an agreement to extend the due date on the note, and a failure to pay the note within the extended period. Any matters going to the validity of the note or the extension thereof should be affirmatively set out as defenses to the claim.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 So. 2d 690, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-chryslerplymouth-inc-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack