Sands v. Diliberto

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sands v. Diliberto

546 So. 2d 455, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1705, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1989 WL 78308

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1989

DocketNo. 88-866

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 455 (Sands v. Diliberto) 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

Sands v. Diliberto, 546 So. 2d 455, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1705, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1989 WL 78308 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals an adverse summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. It appears without material dispute that no later than 1981 appellant was aware of discrepancies in the accounts provided by his former joint venture partner and had concluded that the joint venture contract had been breached, as a' result of which he engaged counsel who corresponded with appellee about the agreement. When appellant eventually examined the accounting records, the cause of the discrepancy (which appellant contends was a tortious padding of the payroll by appellee) was apparent on the face of the records. We conclude on these facts that appellant’s claims should have been discovered, in the exercise of due diligence, in 1981. See Cherney v. Moody, 413 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 95.031, Fla.Stat. (1987). As appellant’s present suit was filed in 1987, beyond the limitation period, we conclude summary judgment was correctly entered. See §§ 95.11(2)(b), (3), 772.-17, Fla.Stat. (1987).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals an adverse summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. It appears without material dispute that no later than 1981 appellant was aware of discrepancies in the accounts provided by his former joint venture partner and had concluded that the joint venture contract had been breached, as a' result of which he engaged counsel who corresponded with appellee about the agreement. When appellant eventually examined the accounting records, the cause of the discrepancy (which appellant contends was a tortious padding of the payroll by appellee) was apparent on the face of the records. We conclude on these facts that appellant’s claims should have been discovered, in the exercise of due diligence, in 1981. See Cherney v. Moody, 413 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 95.031, Fla.Stat. (1987). As appellant’s present suit was filed in 1987, beyond the limitation period, we conclude summary judgment was correctly entered. See §§ 95.11(2)(b), (3), 772.-17, Fla.Stat. (1987).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 455, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1705, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1989 WL 78308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sands-v-diliberto-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack