RONALD FOWLER AND BETSY HELEN FOWLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RANDOLPH Y. MATHENY ET AL., 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.
The court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to recover the purchase price of corporate bonds sold in violation of securities law. The lawsuit was filed more than two years after the sale, exceeding the statutory limit for bringing such actions.
No, allegations of fraudulent concealment or lack of knowledge cannot revive a cause of action that has already been extinguished by the expiration of the statutory period for bringing the action.
“no action shall be brought for the recovery of the purchase price after two years from the date of such sale”
Establishes the statutory time limit for the cause of action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sued to recover the purchase price of corporate bonds, alleging they were sold fraudulently and in violation of the Uniform Sale of Securit…
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 Fraudulent Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants filed their complaint against the defendants-appellees to recover the purchase price paid by them for corporate bonds sold in violation of the Uniform Sale of Securities Law, F.S.A. ch.' 517. In endeavoring to justify filing the action more thah two years after the sale appellants alleged they did not know and defendants did not reveal to them the fact that the bonds had been fraudulently sold in violation of the statute and plaintiffs did not discover that they had been so fraudulently sold until a certain date which was within two years from the time of filing the complaint. The court dismissed the cause of action citing F.S.A. § 517.21 which provides that “ * * * no action shall be brought for the recovery of the purchase price after two years from the date of such sale * *
F.S.A. § 517.21 created an entirely new right of action that did not exist at common law and expressly attached thereto, without any exception, the proviso that the action must be brought within two years from the date of sale. Such a limitation of time is not like an ordinary statute of limitation affecting merely the remedy, but it enters into and becomes a part of the right of action itself, and if allowed to elapse without the institution of the action, such right of action becomes extinguished and is gone forever. See La Floridienne, J. Buttgenbach Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 1910, 59 Fla. 196, 52 So. 298, and Bowery v. Babbit, 1930, 99 Fla. 1151, 128 So. 801, and 34 Am.Jur., Limitations of Actions, § 7.
*678When the two year period for bringing an action under F.S.A. § 517.21 passed, the right of action terminated. Allegations of defendants’ fraudulent concealment or lack of knowledge on the part of the plaintiff could not revive the cause of action. F.S.A. § 95.11(5) (d), the fraud exception to statutes of limitation, is not applicable. The principles of law announced in La Floridienne and Bowery are controlling here.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regal Wood Prods., Inc. v. First Wis. Nat'l Bank OF Milwaukee, 347 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…merely the remedy, but it enters into and becomes a part of the right of action itself, and if allowed to elapse without the institution of the action, such right of action becomes extinguished [*645] and is gone forever. Compare Fowler v. Matheny, 184 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DC A 1966). The subcontractor, having failed to bring an action to enforce its lien within one year after the claim of lien was recorded, no longer has a right of action on its claim of lien. The subsequent Section 713.24 transfer bond pr…
-
Beach v. Great W. Bank, 670 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…n other words, when the right and the remedy are created by the same statute, the limitations of the remedy are treated as limitations of the right. Id. at 1163, 128 So. at 806 (citations omitted). Our court followed that rule in Fowler v. Matheny, 184 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA1966), in construing a limitation period contained within the Uniform Sale of Securities Law: F.S.A. § 517.21 created an entirely new right of action that did not exist at common law and expressly attached thereto, without any exceptio…
-
Special Disability Tr. Fund v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 551 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…es the general principle that where a statute creates a right of action that did not exist at common law and attaches thereto a time limitation with no exceptions, the claim is forever barred if not asserted within the time limit. Fowler v. Matheny, 184 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); La Floridienne v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 59 Fla. 196, 52 So. 298 (1910). See also Bowery v. Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151, 128 So. 801 (1930). In La Floridienne, the statute at issue granted a right to sue for certain conduct by railroad…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowery v. Searles Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151 (Fla. 1930)
- La Floridienne v. The Seaboard Air Line Ry., 59 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1910)