EDWARD M. CAREY, APPELLANT,
v.
S. A. BEYER AND MARY T. BEYER, HIS WIFE, 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 Florida Supreme Court held that insanity does not toll the statute of limitations for slander of title actions absent an explicit statutory saving clause. The plaintiff's two-year limitations period had expired before he brought suit, and the disability exception in Florida's statute of limitations did not apply to tort claims for slander of title.
Insanity does not toll the statute of limitations for slander of title actions because Florida's statute of limitations contains no saving clause for such disabilities in tort actions. The general rule is that absent explicit statutory exceptions, courts will not relieve parties from the operation of statutes of limitations based on disability.
“The general rule is that unless a statute of limitations contains a saving clause, relief from its provisions account of disability will not be granted.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that disability does not toll limitations absent explicit statutory language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Carey was committed to the State Hospital at Chattahoochee on July 6, 1939, and was released on furlough on July 25, 1949, then discharged on J…
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 Savings Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
The point for determination in this case is whether or not the disability of insanity existing when the right of action for slander of title accrued and continuing for a period of time thereafter tolls the running of the statute of limitations.
It is settled in this State that actions for slander of title are controlled by the two year statute of limitations, Section 95.11(6), F.S.A.; Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla., 68 So. 2d 180.
Did complainant’s disability of insanity toll the statute of limitations? In his brief he contends that the cause of action accrued October 11, 1949, but in his complaint he alleges that , it accrued January 22, 1947. It is admitted that appellant was committed to the State Hospital at Chattahoochee July 6, 1939, that he was released therefrom on furlough July 25, 1949, and that he was discharged July 25, 1950. .As to date, of accrual of the action, appellant is bound by the allegation in his complaint. It is clear that 'his action was barred unless his insanity tolled the statute. .
The general rule is that unless a statute of limitations contains a saving clause., relief from its provisions account of disability will .not be granted. .The statute in . question contains an . exception, relative to recovery of real property but it does not help appellant who claims dam« ages for slander of title. When the leg islature refuses to write exceptions into the act the courts have consistently refused to do . so. 34 American Jurisprudence, page 162, Section 201; Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, Fla., 56 So. 2d 341. See also Faulk & Coleman v. Harper, Fla., 62 So. 2d 62. In this holding we do not overlook appellant’s contention that Section 95.20,. F.S.A., authorizes this action. This statute has to do with actions for recovery of real property while the action here is based on tort and is not covered by the last-cited statute.
The judgment appealed from must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING' and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sailboat KEY, Inc. v. Gardner, 378 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ve repeatedly recognized the interplay between libel and slander on the one hand, and “slander of title” on the other. Indeed, the statute of limitations applicable to libel and slander has been held applicable to “slander of title”. Carey v. Beyer, 75 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1954); Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., supra. Florida courts have also acknowledged that a defendant in a “slander of title” action enjoys the same privilege which he would enjoy, under the same circumstances, in a libel action…
-
In re Est. of David Aron, 118 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…t to the expiration of the time for election of dower, would be allowed to file an election under section 744.62, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., above quoted. We find that this question must be answered in the negative. In the case of Carey v. Beyer, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 217, the Supreme Court of Florida had to decide whether or not the disability of insanity existing when a right of action for slander of title accrued and continuing for a period of time thereafter tolls the running of the statute of limitations. In tha…
-
The Putnam Berkley Grp., Inc. v. Dinin, 734 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…anguage of the statute. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 609 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.1992). When construing statutes of limitations, generally courts will not write in exceptions when the legislature has refused to do so. Carey v. Beyer, 75 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1954). “Given these rules of construction, we find the plain language of section 95.051 does not provide for the tolling of the statute of limitations in cases in which the tortfeasor fraudulently conceals his or her identity. The statute spec…
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
- Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1952)
- Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1953)
- Faulk & Coleman v. Harper, 62 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1952)