IRA SANDS, APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE M. DILIBERTO, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-07-18
No. 88-866
Before BARKDULL and COPE, JJ., and JOSEPH P. McNULTY, Associate Judge.
546 So. 2d 455 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Discovery Rule Due Diligence Statute Of Limitations Breach Of Contract

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Rule cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ira Sands v. Blando, 575 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …the statute of limitations requirement. We find no basis under which the requirements of the statute could be tolled in this case. We note that this is one of two appeals which appellant has brought before this [*1307] court. In Sands v. Diliberto, 546 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), cause dismissed, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1990), appellant also appealed an adverse summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. In that case, appellant also claimed fraud and discrepancies in records. Appellant alleg…
  • Haight v. Hall, 625 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
    …t there was substantial competent evidence to support that finding. A finding of fact by a trial judge in a nonjury case will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Echevarria v. Republic Nat’l Bank, 546 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw