JOHN L. VISCONTI AND MARGARET M. VISCONTI, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF TITUSVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal answered a certified question regarding the statute of limitations for trespass actions against municipalities in Florida, holding that the 12-month limitation period under Section 95.24 applies to city trespass claims rather than the three-year period in Section 95.11(5)(b).
The court held that the 12-month limitation period prescribed by Section 95.24 is the applicable period of limitation on an action against a city for trespass upon real property.
[1] An action against a city for trespass upon real property is subject to a one-year limitations period.
[2] Section 95.24, F.S., governs the limitations period for actions against a city for negligent or wrongful injury or damage to person or property.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When it shall appear to a judge of the lower court that there is involved in any cause pending before him questions or propositions of law that are determinative of the cause and are without controlling precedent in this state and that instruction from the Court will facilitate the proper disposition of the cause, said judge, on his own motion or on motion of either party, may certify said question or proposition of law to the Court for instruction.”
Sets forth the statutory procedure for certifying controlling questions of law that lack precedent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Viscontis filed an action against the City of Titusville for trespass upon real property. A question arose regarding which statute of limitations …
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 Certified Question cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause arises under Rule 4.6, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., governing certified questions, which provides:
“When it shall appear to a judge of the lower court that there is involved in any cause pending before him questions or propositions of law that are determinative of the cause and are without controlling precedent in this state and that instruction from'the Court will facilitate the proper disposition of the cause, said judge, on his own motion or on motion of either party, may certify said question or proposition of law to the Court for instruction.”
Pursuant to Rule 4.6 the following question has been certified to this Court:
“Is the period of limitations on an action against a city for trespass upon real property one (1) year under Section 95.24, F.S., [F.S.A.], or three (3) years under Section 95.11 (5) (b), F.S.?”1
*694Based upon the rationale as set forth in Coleman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 409, we conclude that the 12-month limitation period prescribed by Section 95.24 is the period of limitation on an action against the City for trespass upon real property. Cf. Parker v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 131.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
John L. Visconti et ux. v. City OF Titusville, 274 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 269 So. 2d 693. CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. City OF Jacksonville, 82 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1955)
- Coleman v. City of ST. Petersburg, 62 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1953)