CITY OF QUINCY, APPELLANT,
v.
MILES K. WOMACK, 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 City of Quincy appeals a judgment awarding damages for breach of contract, contending that the appellee's lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirms, holding that where a contract imposes continuing obligations, the statute of limitations period runs from each continuing breach, not from the initial cessation of performance.
The statute of limitations period for a breach of contract involving continuing obligations runs from each continuing breach of the contract, not from the initial breach. The appellee's lawsuit, filed in June 2008, was timely as it fell within the five-year limitations period for the City's continuing breach, even though the City's initial decision to cease performance occurred in February 2003.
[1] A statute of limitations for a continuing breach of contract is calculated from the date of the continuing breach, not the initial breach.
[2] A party's ongoing nonperformance of contractual obligations constitutes a continuing breach of contract.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 City's continuing subsequent breaches provided subsequent dates from which the limitations time may be calculated, with the appellee's lawsuit having been filed within the limitations period under section 95.11(2)(b) for the continuing breach of the parties' contract”
Establishes the core holding that continuing breaches restart the statute of limitations period
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Quincy and Miles Womack entered into a contract giving the City water rights to a lake on Womack's property. The contract required the Cit…
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 Continuing Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Quincy appeals from an order by which the trial court awarded damages to the appellee, upon the City’s breach of contract. In challenging that award the City contends that the appel-lee’s lawsuit was not filed within the limitations time allowed under section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes. But the City is calculating that time from its initial breach of a continuing obligation under the contract, and the City’s continuing subsequent breaches provided subsequent dates from which the limitations time may be calculated, with the appellee’s lawsuit having been filed within the limitations period under section 95.11(2)(b) for the continuing breach of the parties’ contract.
The City and the appellee entered into a contract which gave the City water rights in connection with a lake on property owned by the appellee, with the City agreeing to ongoing obligations including continuing maintenance and repairs to an existing dam and spillway. The City later decided that it no longer needed to use the water from the lake on the appellee’s property, and the City further decided that it would cease maintaining and repairing the dam and spillway. That decision was apparently made in February 2003, but the City did not communicate this to the ap-pellee until May 2008, after the appellee contacted the City and complained about the City’s failure to perform the required maintenance and repairs.
The appellee filed his lawsuit against the City in June 2008, and indicated that he had not realized that the City was no longer maintaining the dam until problems arose after heavy rains earlier in 2008. The City interposed a statute of limitations defense, asserting that the five-year limitations period in section 95.11(2)(b) commenced in February 2003 when the City ceased performing its obligations under the contract, and that the appellee’s lawsuit was thus barred as it was not filed within that limitations time. The trial court rejected that assertion, and the City now challenges the trial court’s ruling and *1078the award of damages for the City’s breach of the contract.
In asserting that the limitations period had expired, the City ignores the continuing nature of its obligations under the contract, and that its ongoing nonperformance constituted a continuing breach while the contract remained in effect. The ap-pellee’s cause of action was not limited to the City’s initial breach, and the section 95.11(2)(b) statute of limitations had not expired when the appellee filed his lawsuit which encompassed the City’s continuing breach. See Bishop v. State, Div. of Retirement, 413 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The trial court properly rejected the City’s statute of limitations defense, and the appealed order is affirmed.
KAHN and LEWIS, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…that limitations period ran from time contract was breached). However, where an obligation is continuing in nature, a party’s “ongoing nonperformance constitute^] a continuing breach while the contract remain[s] in effect.” City of Quincy v. Womack, 60 So. 3d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The Condominium Association’s Complaint alleged that the Hotel and Club Owner breached the Declaration when it charged annual fees and dues in excess of the initial membership fee, and that this breach is continuing in nat…
-
Ranucci v. THE City of Palmetto, 317 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2014)…as nuisance and trespass, in which Florida courts recognize a continuing violation rule, see Carlton v. Germany Hammock Groves, 803 So. 2d 852, 854-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and to cases involving affirmative covenants, see City of Quincy v. Womack, 60 So. 3d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“In asserting that the limitations period had expired, the City ignores the continuing nature of its obligations under the contract, and that its ongoing nonperformance constituted a continuing breach while the contract re…
Authorities Cited
- Bishop v. State, 413 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)