Mackle v. Mackle

389 So. 2d 1081, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 4, 1980
DocketNo. 80-415
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 389 So. 2d 1081 (Mackle v. Mackle) 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
Mackle v. Mackle, 389 So. 2d 1081, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

On the basis of Section 733.104(1), Florida Statutes (1979), the trial judge dismissed this action for fraud allegedly committed during his lifetime upon Elliott Mackle, the decedent of the plaintiff-personal representative, because the complaint was filed more than one year after his death. This was error.

Section 733.104(1) provides:

Suspension of statutes of limitation in favor of the personal representative-
(1) If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the expiration of the [1082]*1082time limited for the commencement of the action and the cause of action survives,1 the action may be commenced by his personal representative after the expiration and within 12 months from the date of the decedent’s death.

As is obvious from its title and language, the sole effect of this provision is to benefit the estate by suspending and elongating the period in which a personal representative may commence an action as to which the pertinent limitations period would have expired during the year after death.2 It plainly has no effect upon the commencement of actions which are not otherwise time-barred and does not, contrary to the ruling below, impose a new one-year blanket statute of limitations3 upon all causes of action which survive. Sammis v. Wightman, 31 Fla. 10, 12 So. 526 (1893); Genslinger v. New Illinois Athletic Chib, 322 Ill. 316, 163 N.E. 707 (1928); McNear v. Roberson, 12 Ind.App. 87, 39 N.E. 896 (1895); Converse v. Johnson, 146 Mass. 20, 14 N.E. 925 (1888); Atwood v. Bursch, 107 N.H. 189, 219 A.2d 285 (1966). In this case, the complaint-perhaps unnecessarily 4affirmatively alleged facts which demonstrate that the action was timely filed within the statute of limitations as to fraud, Sections 95.031, 95.11(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1979). The judgment under review is therefore

Reversed.

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

Related

Prevish v. Northwest Medical Center—Oil City Campus
692 A.2d 192 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Estate of Harris v. Eichel
565 A.2d 1281 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 So. 2d 1081, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackle-v-mackle-fladistctapp-1980.