N.G. ex rel. M.G. v. Arvida Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.G. ex rel. M.G. v. Arvida Corp.

630 So. 2d 1164, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12518, 1993 WL 530857

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1993

DocketNo. 93-327

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 630 So. 2d 1164 (N.G. ex rel. M.G. v. Arvida Corp.) 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

N.G. ex rel. M.G. v. Arvida Corp., 630 So. 2d 1164, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12518, 1993 WL 530857 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, N.G., appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the [1165]*1165defendants, Arvida Corporation, David B. Mesoroll, Jr., Arvida Management Co., Country Walk Master Association, Inc., Country Walk Estate Homes Association, Inc., Country Walk Patio Homes Association, Inc., and State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service [collectively referred to as the Defendants] finding that his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

The only issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs action is barred by the four-year statute of limitation governing negligence actions. The plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled because the plaintiff did not have access to the courts to prosecute his claim for damages. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the four-year limitations period had already run as of the date of the July 31, 1991, action.

The record reveals that this cause of action accrued on August 10, 1984, the date on which the plaintiffs abuser was actually arrested on charges of sexual child abuse and the last possible date on which the plaintiff could have been abused. Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), appeal dismissed, 560 So.2d 233 (Fla.1990). This negligence action must have been commenced within four years of the accrual date, or by August 9, 1988. See § 95.11(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Rule 1.210, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1983), allows an infant to bring an action by next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Anyone who was aware of the plaintiffs predicament had the authority to and could assert the plaintiffs legal rights. No one acted on the plaintiffs behalf. Thus, during the relevant time period of August 10, 1984 through August 9, 1988, the plaintiff had access to the courts. Accordingly, the limitations period was not tolled and the trial court correctly determined that the applicable statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs action.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, N.G., appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the [1165]*1165defendants, Arvida Corporation, David B. Mesoroll, Jr., Arvida Management Co., Country Walk Master Association, Inc., Country Walk Estate Homes Association, Inc., Country Walk Patio Homes Association, Inc., and State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service [collectively referred to as the Defendants] finding that his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

The only issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs action is barred by the four-year statute of limitation governing negligence actions. The plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled because the plaintiff did not have access to the courts to prosecute his claim for damages. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the four-year limitations period had already run as of the date of the July 31, 1991, action.

The record reveals that this cause of action accrued on August 10, 1984, the date on which the plaintiffs abuser was actually arrested on charges of sexual child abuse and the last possible date on which the plaintiff could have been abused. Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), appeal dismissed, 560 So.2d 233 (Fla.1990). This negligence action must have been commenced within four years of the accrual date, or by August 9, 1988. See § 95.11(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Rule 1.210, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1983), allows an infant to bring an action by next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Anyone who was aware of the plaintiffs predicament had the authority to and could assert the plaintiffs legal rights. No one acted on the plaintiffs behalf. Thus, during the relevant time period of August 10, 1984 through August 9, 1988, the plaintiff had access to the courts. Accordingly, the limitations period was not tolled and the trial court correctly determined that the applicable statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 So. 2d 1164, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12518, 1993 WL 530857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ng-ex-rel-mg-v-arvida-corp-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack