BELLEVIEW VILLAS CONDOMINIUM I ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A trial court has discretion to dismiss a case for failure of service under Rule 1.070(j) even when the statute of limitations has expired on the underlying claim.
[1] A trial court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to effectuate service of process under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) notwithstanding the expirati…
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 intelligence“While we are sympathetic that the statute of limitations has expired on Denose's claim against Garcia, the trial court has discretion to dismiss a case for a failure of service under Rule 1.070(j) even when the statute of limitations serves to bar an action.”
Court citing Denose v. Garcia, 388 So. 3d 857, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Belleview Villas Condominium I Association filed an action against Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company in Miami-Dade County. The trial cour…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.070(J) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 30, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0542 Lower Tribunal No. 22-17523-CA-01 ________________
Belleview Villas Condominium I Association, Inc., Appellant,
vs.
Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman, for appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Elliot H. Scherker, Brigid F. Cech Samole, Mark A. Salky, James E. Gillenwater and Bethany J. M. Pandher, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Denose v. Garcia, 388 So. 3d 857, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“While we are sympathetic that the statute of limitations has expired on Denose’s claim against Garcia, the trial court has discretion to dismiss a case for a failure of service under Rule 1.070(j) even when the statute of limitations serves to bar an action.”); Powell v. Madison Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 100 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming dismissal for failure to effectuate service despite expiration of statute of limitations where trial court balanced the competing policy considerations between achieving a resolution on the merits and the preclusive effect of the statute of limitations).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Powell v. Madison Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 100 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Michelet Denose v. Garcia, 388 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)