Mayfield v. Simpson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayfield v. Simpson

610 So. 2d 77, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12511, 1992 WL 362203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

DocketNo. 92-413

StatusPublished

This text of 610 So. 2d 77 (Mayfield v. Simpson) 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

Mayfield v. Simpson, 610 So. 2d 77, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12511, 1992 WL 362203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a final judgment dismissing all five counts of Mayfield’s counterclaim on grounds that each is barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. The first four counts show on their face that each alleged cause of action accrued more than four years before it was filed, and finding no error in the trial court’s rejection of the asserted ground for tolling the statute of limitations, we affirm the dismissal of those counts. Appellee concedes, however, and we agree, that the dismissal of the fifth count, alleging breach of trust, was error. The four-year statute of limitations did not begin to run from the alleged date of delivery of the trust corpus to Appellee, as ruled by the court, because a cause of action for breach of trust does not accrue until such time as the trust is breached by the trustee. Accordingly, dismissal of the fifth count is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings thereon.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a final judgment dismissing all five counts of Mayfield’s counterclaim on grounds that each is barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. The first four counts show on their face that each alleged cause of action accrued more than four years before it was filed, and finding no error in the trial court’s rejection of the asserted ground for tolling the statute of limitations, we affirm the dismissal of those counts. Appellee concedes, however, and we agree, that the dismissal of the fifth count, alleging breach of trust, was error. The four-year statute of limitations did not begin to run from the alleged date of delivery of the trust corpus to Appellee, as ruled by the court, because a cause of action for breach of trust does not accrue until such time as the trust is breached by the trustee. Accordingly, dismissal of the fifth count is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings thereon.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 77, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12511, 1992 WL 362203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayfield-v-simpson-fladistctapp-1992.