THOMAS EDMUND LONG, JR. AND ANNY LUNDY LONG, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CITRUS COUNTY, 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.
The Longs purchased a house with an express warranty that the seller would repair it to new construction standards. When drainage problems emerged, they sued for breach of warranty more than four years but within five years after discovery. The court held that the five-year statute of limitations for written contracts applies rather than the four-year statute for construction defects, and reversed the summary judgment.
The five-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(2)(b) for written contracts applies to the Longs' breach of express warranty claim. Section 95.11(3)(c)'s shortened four-year statute was enacted to protect architects, engineers, and contractors from prolonged liability, not vendors who expressly warrant compliance with construction standards in a sale agreement. Since the complaint was filed within five years of discovering the breach, it is not barred.
[1] An action for breach of an express warranty in a purchase and sale agreement for real property is governed by the statute of limitations for actions on a written contract…
[2] The statute of limitations for actions founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property is intended to protect architects, engineers, a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The applicable statute of limitations for the claim asserted by the Longs is the five year statute of limitations of § 95.11(2)(b).”
Establishes the governing statute of limitations for the breach of express warranty claim based on the written contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Longs purchased a house and lot from First Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1979 under a Purchase and Sale Agreement containing an express …
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 Improvement To Real Property cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Mr. and Mrs. Long, the plaintiffs below, appeal a final summary judgment finding that their claim was barred by § 95.11(3)(c), Fla.Stat, a four year statute of limitations. We agree that the circuit court applied the wrong statute of limitations, and reverse.
The Longs purchased a house and lot from the appellee in 1979. Prior to the sale the parties entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement which contained an express warranty that the seller would make all repairs “necessary to bring the building up to new construction standards.” On or before May 20,1980 the Longs began experiencing problems with the property’s drainage system, and on July 18, 1984 they filed suit alleging that appellee had breached the express warranty by failing to remedy the drainage problems. The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the breach of warranty claim was barred by § 95.11(3)(c) which provides a four year statute of limitations for actions “founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property.” The Longs argued that the governing statute was § 95.11(2)(b) which provides a five year statute of limitations for actions “on a contract, obligation or liability founded on a written instrument.” The circuit court found that the § 95.-ll(3)(c) four year statute of limitations applied, and granted appellee’s motion for final summary judgment.
On appeal the Longs argue that the lower court applied the wrong statute of limitations and that their action, filed after four years but within five years of the discovery of the drainage problems, is not barred. We agree. The applicable statute of limitations for the claim asserted by the Longs is the five year statute of limitations of § 95.11(2)(b). Since their complaint was filed within five years from the discovery of the alleged breach of warranty, the claim is not barred. The appellee was merely the vendor in the sale of the property to the Longs, and is not within the class of persons sought to be protected by the shortened statute of limitations of § 95.-ll(3)(c). This provision was enacted by the legislature in 1980, and the preamble to the revised version makes it clear the legislature’s intent was to limit the amount of time an architect, engineer or contractor could be exposed to potential liability for the design or construction of an improvement to real property. Ch. 80-322, § 2 Laws of Florida. There is no basis for appellee’s assertion that this statute of limitations extends to include vendors who expressly warrant to bring a structure into compliance with new construction standards as part of a sale agreement.
The final summary judgment in favor of appellee is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to vacate the final judgment and reinstate the action.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.