RADIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIAN CAMPBELL, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES A. CAMPBELL, DECEASED, 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.
Radiation, Inc. sought specific performance to compel the administratrix of Charles A. Campbell's estate to assign four patents to it, based on an employment agreement. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on Florida's three-year statute of limitations for actions against unadministered estates, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred because no letters of administration were taken out within three years of Campbell's death.
The statute of limitations in Section 734.29 bars the plaintiff's equity action for specific performance against the unadministered estate because no letters of administration were taken out within three years of the decedent's death in 1957 and the action was not brought until 1963.
“After three years from the death of any person his estate shall not be liable for any obligation or upon any cause of action if no letters testamentary or of administration with respect thereto have been taken out in Florida within said three years”
The statutory language of Section 734.29 establishing the three-year bar to claims against unadministered estates, which the court held barred plaintiff's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles A. Campbell was employed by Radiation, Inc. as a research engineer in 1954 and signed an agreement to assign all inventions and patents to the…
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Associate Judge.
The narrow question presented by this appeal concerns the operation of Section 734.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., Limitations against unadministered estates, as an affirmative defense and absolute bar to plaintiff’s claim.
*193The material facts disclose that defendant’s decedent, Charles A. Campbell, was employed by the plaintiff as a research engineer on July 12, 1954. As part of the consideration for such employment, decedent executed an agreement whereby he contracted to assign to plaintiff all inventions and patents thereafter issued to him.
Campbell continued this employment until September 1, 1957, and during said employment applied to the United States Patent Office for four patents on certain electronic devices developed by him while in plaintiff’s employ.
Decedent died December 22, 1957, while the patent applications were pending. Thereafter the four United States patents which are the subject of this litigation were issued to “Charles A. Campbell, his heirs or assigns.”
Plaintiff had actual knowledge of Camp- . bell’s failure to execute an assignment upon application and of his subsequent death as early as 1958.
In 1963, plaintiff filed a Petition for -Letters of Administration in the County Judge’s Court of Palm Beach County. The defendant appeared therein and exercised her right of preference to be appointed .administratrix of her late husband’s estate. See Sections 732.43 and 732.44, Florida Statutes Annotated.
Plaintiff then brought this present action for specific performance and other relief seeking the assignment of the patents to itself. Defendant answered and raised the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations,
Section 734.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that:
“(1) After three years from the death of any person his estate shall not be Háble for any obligation or upon any cause of action if no letters testamentary or of administration with respect thereto have been taken out in Florida within said three years * * *."
In both Gilpen v. Bower, 1943, 152 Fla. 733, 12 So.2d 884, and Holden v. Patterson, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 772, it was held that this statute protected the estate of a decedent from liability on any cause of action or any obligation. Further, in Grable v. Nunez, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 154, while recognizing that in courts of equity there is no such thing as a statute of limitations but rather, that the court is governed by the doctrine of laches, the Florida Supreme Court nevertheless held an equity action could be barred by applying the statute of limitations.
It follows, therefore, that the chancellor below was eminently correct when he found that plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by Section 734.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
Appellant attempts to avoid this result by raising a theory of the case on appeal not previously presented to the trial court.
It is a rule of long standing that an appellate court will confine itself to a review of those questions which were raised and determined in the trial court. Alliance for Conservation of Nat. Resources, etc. v. Furen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 51; Mariani v. Schleman, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 829; Jones v. Neibergall, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 918; Condrey v. Condrey, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 423; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 290.
This court has carefully reviewed the' record and fails to find' that the proposition that the defendant herein is the trustee of her late husband was ever presented to the trial court and hence the same is not before us for review.
No error having been made to appear the final decree of the iower court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. George Azar, M.D., 648 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e no finding on this issue. The only issue before the court, as reflected in the court’s order, was which party breached the contract. The argument of mutual termination cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, 200 So. 2d 192,193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Accordingly this cause will be remanded for the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of damages for the third year based on the evidence in the record.1 POST-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS In the second part of this appea…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Porras, 214 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ed. We have examined the other point urged by the appellant and find this point not to be well taken, because same was not originally raised in the trial court. Oliva v. Baum, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 319; Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 192; Jackson v. Whitmire Construction Company, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 861. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Langston v. City OF Miami Beach, 242 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…t it would revert to the abutting property owner, similar to a public easement as set out in Smith v. Horn, infra; Servando Building Co. v. Zimmerman, infra. . Mariani v. Schleman, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 829; Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 192; United Services Automobile Association v. Porras, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 749.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1957)
- Condrey v. Condrey, 92 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1957)
- Grable v. Nunez, 64 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1953)
- Gilpen v. Bower, 152 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1943)
- Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 122 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Holden v. Patterson et ux., 64 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1953)