AUTO ELECTRIC, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PHYLLIS J. HELTON, APPELLEE; TONY SIGNORINI, APPELLANT, V. JOHN F. HELTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissals of replevin actions for promissory notes, holding that the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations without evidence establishing when the defendants' possession became wrongful.
The statute of limitations for replevin does not begin to run until the defendant's possession becomes wrongful, and dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is improper without evidence establishing that date.
[1] The statute of limitations for replevin of personal property does not commence until the defendant's possession becomes wrongful, and a trial court cannot dismiss on stat…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs alleged they lawfully delivered promissory notes to defendants on December 1, 1976, under an oral stock purchase agreement, and when a cond…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations Accrual cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek reversal of orders dismissing with prejudice their suits for replevin of promissory notes allegedly in possession of the appellees, defendants below.
In their complaints, plaintiffs alleged that the respective defendants lawfully received possession of the promissory notes in question on December 1, 1976, under an oral stock purchase agreement. They further alleged that when, through no fault of their own, a condition subsequent was not performed, they demanded possession of the notes. Plaintiffs asserted that at that time the defendants wrongfully withheld delivery. Prior to trial the court dismissed the causes of action on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs’ claims.
The statute of limitations for recovery of specific personal property is four years. § 95.11(3)(i), Fla.Stat.(1981). However, the statute does not begin to run until the last element constituting a cause of action occurs. § 95.031(1). At the time of dismissal, nothing in the pleadings indicated the date when defendants’ possession became wrongful. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ actions without having evidence before it to determine the date when the statute commenced running.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate both cases.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.