HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTORS LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY AND THROUGH LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA, INC., AS GENERAL PARTNER, D/B/A AMI-TOWN AND COUNTRY MEDICAL CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD L. LEFOR AND BETTI LEFOR, APPELLEES
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.
Hospital Constructors Ltd. appealed a trial court's dismissal of all claims against the Lefors for unpaid medical services provided in 1990. The court held that claims against Mr. Lefor were barred by the four-year statute of limitations for non-written contracts, but reversed the dismissal of the claim against Mrs. Lefor as a written guarantor, which was subject to a five-year limitation period that was tolled by payments.
The claims against Mr. Lefor based on an unwritten obligation were barred by the four-year statute of limitations. However, the claim against Mrs. Lefor as a written guarantor was not barred because the five-year statute of limitations was tolled by payments made through June 1993, extending the deadline to June 1998.
[1] A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, and the trial court must confine itself strictly to the four corner…
[2] All factual allegations of a complaint must be considered true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when ruling on a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 statute of limitations on a legal or equitable contract or obligation not founded on a written instrument is four years [...] When an action is based upon an obligation founded on a written instrument, the statute of limitations is five years.”
Establishes the dual statute of limitations framework that is critical to distinguishing the claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe hospital provided medical treatment to Mr. Lefor on April 16 and May 3, 1990. Payments were made from March 1991 through June 1993. The hospital f…
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 Contract Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Hospital Constructors Ltd., by and through Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc., as General Partner, d/b/a AMI-Town and Country Medical Center (the hospital), appeals the trial court’s order which held that the hospital’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On April 16, 1990, and May 3, 1990, the hospital provided Mr. Lefor with medical treatment. Payments were remitted to the hospital from, or on behalf of, Mr. Lefor commencing on or about March 1991, and continuing monthly through June 1993. On December 8, 1997, the hospital filed a five-count complaint. In counts one through four, the hospital asserted that Mr. Lefor had not paid for the services provided in 1990 and the balance was due. The fifth count alleged that Mrs. Lefor was liable for the unpaid medical bills as an unconditional guarantor in a written agreement. Lefors filed a motion to dismiss all counts asserting the actions were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint and the trial court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint. See McWhirter, Reeves, McGothlin, Davidson, Rief & Bakas, P.A. v. Weiss, 704 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). All factual allegations of the complaint are considered to be true and must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Caretta Trucking, Inc. v. Cheoy Lee Shipyards, Ltd., 647 So. 2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The statute of limitations on a legal or equitable contract or obligation not founded on a written instrument is four years. See § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1990). When an action is based upon an obligation founded on a written instrument, the statute of limitations is five years. See § 96.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1990). The payment of any part of the principal or interest of any obligation or liability founded on a written instrument tolls the running of the time under any statute of limitations. See § 95.051(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1990). See Chaplin v. Estate of Cooke, 432 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
The causes of action in counts one through four against Mr. Lefor were barred by the four year statute of limitation because the hospital did not base its allegations upon any written agreement made by him. We affirm the dismissal of these counts. However, the hospital’s cause of action against Mrs. Lefor, which alleged that she was a guarantor in a written agreement, was not barred because the five year statute of limitation was tolled by the payments made to the hospital through June 1993. See § 95.051(l)(f). Therefore, based on the allegations, the cause of action against Mrs. Lefor as guarantor in count five was extended until June 1998. The dismissal of count five of the complaint is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooke v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, 828 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…otion to dismiss, the trial court must confine itself to the four corners of the complaint, accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hosp. Constructors Ltd. v. Lefor, 749 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The defendant may raise the statute of limitations in a motion to dismiss only when the violation of the statute of limitations appears on the face of the complaint and its attachments. Koehler v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 706 So. 2d…
-
Syvrud v. Today Real Est., Inc., 858 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e factual allegations of the first amended complaint to be true, and we construe them in the light most favorable to the Buyers as the nonmoving party. See [*1127] Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 280 (Fla.1976); Hosp. Constructors Ltd. v. Lefor, 749 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On May 7, 2001, the Sellers and the Buyers entered into a contract for sale and purchase of the property on a preprinted form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. The form is commonly known a…
-
Hazen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 952 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ns of the amended complaint to be true, and we construe them in the light most favorable to Hazen as the nonmoving party. See Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 280 (Fla.1976); Hosp. Constructors Ltd. ex rel. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc. v. Lefor, 749 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We apply the de novo standard of review to our consideration of the final judgment dismissing Hazen’s action with prejudice. See Smith v. City of Fort Myers, 898 So. 2d 1177,1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Hazen is a resident of P…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caretta Trucking, Inc. v. Cheoy LEE Shipyards, 647 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- McWHIRTER v. Murray Weiss, 704 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Chaplin v. Est. OF Joanne H. Cooke, 432 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)