National Motel Corp. v. Lareau

District Court of Appeal of Florida

National Motel Corp. v. Lareau

327 So. 2d 116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1976

DocketNo. AA-287

StatusPublished

This text of 327 So. 2d 116 (National Motel Corp. v. Lareau) 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

National Motel Corp. v. Lareau, 327 So. 2d 116 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint will be dismissed as being without substantial merit. Rule 4.2, F.A.R. Stockslager v. Daly Aluminum Prod., Inc., 246 So.2d 97 (Fla.1971), permits filing of a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien under § 713.22(1), F.S.1973, on Monday following expiration of one year on Saturday, when the courts are closed. No similar purpose would be served by excluding Saturday and Sunday from the preceding five-day period which, under § 713.06(3) (d)l, must intervene after filing of the contractor’s affidavit. Because they are matters of affirmative defense, not yet pleaded, we have not considered appellant’s arguments predicated on lack of consideration and the Statute of Frauds.

Dismissed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint will be dismissed as being without substantial merit. Rule 4.2, F.A.R. Stockslager v. Daly Aluminum Prod., Inc., 246 So.2d 97 (Fla.1971), permits filing of a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien under § 713.22(1), F.S.1973, on Monday following expiration of one year on Saturday, when the courts are closed. No similar purpose would be served by excluding Saturday and Sunday from the preceding five-day period which, under § 713.06(3) (d)l, must intervene after filing of the contractor’s affidavit. Because they are matters of affirmative defense, not yet pleaded, we have not considered appellant’s arguments predicated on lack of consideration and the Statute of Frauds.

Dismissed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 So. 2d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-motel-corp-v-lareau-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack