W. F. LASATER AND DIMPLE PAULINE LASATER, APPELLANTS,
v.
HERMAN E. LASATER, SR. AND HORACE CLARKE LASATER, JR., AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF HORACE CLARKE LASATER, SR., DECEASED, 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.
W. F. Lasater and Dimple Pauline Lasater appealed the dismissal of their fifth amended counterclaim regarding alleged resulting trust in real property. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the trial judge did not abuse discretion and applying the doctrine of laches to bar the claim due to a 17-year delay in prosecution.
The court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, finding no reversible error in the trial court's order and holding that the doctrine of laches is applicable to bar the resulting trust allegation due to the 17-year delay between the original 1950 action and the filing of the counterclaim at issue.
[1] A counterclaim may be dismissed with prejudice if the party fails to show cause why it should not be dismissed within the time permitted by the court.
[2] The doctrine of laches is applicable to allegations of a resulting trust.
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“Courts of equity view with disfavor suits brought long after the transactions in issue have occurred, and long after death has closed the lips of those familiar with the occurrences remote in point of time. When such circumstances appear on the face of the complaint, and the delay in prosecuting plaintiff's claim is unexplained, the doctrine of laches will bar relief.”
Establishes the court's rationale for applying laches doctrine to bar the resulting trust claim based on the 17-year delay in prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn action to determine title to real property was filed in 1950 by Horace Clarke Lasater, Sr. (deceased, brother of appellants) against W. F. Lasater …
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 Stale Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, W. F. Lasater and Dimple Pauline Lasater, defendants in the trial court, have appealed from an order dismissing with prejudice their fifth amended counterclaim. The trial judge, the Honorable W. Troy Hall, Jr., circuit judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, entered an order on May 11, 1972, granting appellants 20 days within which to show cause why their fifth amended counterclaim should not be dismissed with prejudice. Appellants failed to comply with the order and failed to show cause within the time period permitted therein. Therefore, the trial court entered its final order of dismissal on June 20, 1972.
We have examined the record, thoroughly we believe, and listened attentively to oral arguments by counsel for the respective parties and find no reversible error in the trial court’s findings and orders.
This court is further of the opinion that the doctrine of laches is applicable to the allegation of a resulting trust involved in this appeal. The record shows that an action was filed in the year 1950 by ap-pellees’ predecessor, Horace Clarke Lasater, Sr., deceased, to determine the title to the realty involved in this proceeding. Appellant, W. F. Lasater, filed his counterclaim in that proceeding but no further action was taken therein by either Horace Clarke Lasater, Sr., deceased, brother of appellants, W. F. Lasater and Dimple Paidine Lasater, or by any person or persons, claiming title to the real property involved herein. As a matter of record, it was not until approximately 17 years later that the appellants filed the counterclaim involved in the case subjudice. In support of our conclusion we cite the case of Martin v. Wilson, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 573 (p. 575), as being applicable to this case.
“[4] It is noted that a period of some eighteen years transpired between the *351date on which plaintiff alleges he acquired an interest in the disputed property and the date on which this suit was filed to establish his rights thereto. Courts of equity view with disfavor suits brought long after the transactions in issue have occurred, and long after death has closed the lips of those familiar with the occurrences remote in point of time. When such circumstances appear on the face of the complaint, and the delay in prosecuting plaintiff’s claim is unexplained, the doctrine of laches will bar relief.”
The ruling of the trial judge is, therefore,
Affirmed.
McNULTY, A. C. J., and FOGLE, HARRY W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe Cnty. v. NEW Port Largo, Inc., 467 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…side, however, although the parties have contested the question of whether sec. 95.-231, Fla.Stat. (1981) (20 years) is the analogous statute of limitations for determining an unreasonable delay under the laches doctrine, but see Lasater v. Lasater, 279 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 286 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1973); Martin v. Wilson, 115 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), we point out that the issue may not be determinative in the light of sec. 95.11(6), Fla. Stat. (1981) (laches automatically applicable…
-
Lasater v. Lasater, 286 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 279 So. 2d 350. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. Wilson, 115 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)