ADELLE L. MILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
IRVIN W. LANDERS AND AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1977-10-04
No. 76-1072
CROSS, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
349 So. 2d 722 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Milton filed a negligence action arising from an automobile accident, but appellees moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The court reversed, holding that appellees failed to demonstrate the absence of material fact regarding whether the defendant was amenable to service of process, which affects when the statute of limitations would toll.


Holding

The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that appellees failed to adequately demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact existed because defendant Landers's residential status and amenability to service of process were unclear. The court found that a defendant's absence from Florida tolls the statute of limitations only if the defendant is not amenable to service of process, and appellees did not demonstrate that Landers was unamendable during the relevant period.


Headnotes

[1] A motion for summary judgment must be supported by proof demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.

[2] A defendant's residency status in the state is a material fact when determining the applicability of the statute of limitations and substituted service of process.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“We are unable to find adequate support in the record to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact involved in this case.”

Establishes the core basis for reversing summary judgment—appellees failed to meet their burden of showing the absence of material fact disputes.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Milton filed a complaint on October 1, 1975, for damages from an automobile accident occurring on October 3, 1970, in Lake Worth, Florida. Appellees f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DOWNEY, Judge.

DOWNEY, Judge.

On October 1,1975, appellant filed a complaint against appellees for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Lake Worth, Florida, on October 3, 1970. After appellant filed an amended complaint, appellees filed an answer which included an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. Appellees then filed a motion for summary judgment, without filing any proof in support of the motion. Appellant filed opposing affidavits containing, for the most part, incompetent statements. The trial judge granted summary judgment for appellees and appellant perfected this appeal.

We are unable to find adequate support in the record to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact involved in this case. Specifically, the record does not adequately show whether or not the defendant-appellee Landers was a resident of Florida. Landers’s residential status is crucial to the outcome of appellees’ motion for summary judgment, for if at the time of the accident Landers was not a resident of Florida, or he became a nonresident after the accident, or he has been concealing his whereabouts since the accident, then he would have been subject to substituted service of process under Section 48.171, Florida Statutes (1969); and the statutory period for appellant’s filing of a complaint may well have expired. On the other hand, if Landers was a resident of Florida throughout the period between the date of the accident and the filing of the original complaint, and he has not been concealing his whereabouts, the periods of his absence from the state would have tolled the running of the statute of limitations and the statutory period may well not have expired. Section 95.07, Florida Statutes (1969). Since Landers’s residential status was in doubt, appellees, as the movants for summary judgment, failed to adequately demonstrate the nonexistence of all genuine issues of material fact.

Appellees contend that the filing of a complaint tolls the running of statutes of limitation, and since appellant could have filed suit at any time during the four year period in accordance with Section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (1969), appellant’s failure to file a complaint within four years of the accident bars appellant from maintaining her action. We disagree. While Dibble v. Jensen, 129 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), seems to support appellees’ position, we cannot, for the reasons set forth in Friday v. Newman, 183 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), accept that position. As the Friday court pointed out, a defendant’s absence from the state of Florida tolls the applicable statute of limitations only if the defendant is not amenable to the service of process. In the present case, appellees did not demonstrate that Landers was not amenable to the service of process during the interval between the accident and the filing of appellant’s original complaint. As indicated above, this failure required denial of appellees’ motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CROSS, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Irving W. Landers et ux. v. Adelle L. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979)
    …SUNDBERG, Justice. By petition for writ of certiorari, we are asked to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 349 So. 2d 722, which is alleged to be in conflict with Dibble v. Jensen, 129 So. 2d 162 (Fla.3d DCA 1961), that case holding that the filing of a complaint in a civil action tolls the statute of limitations without regard to the amenability of the defendant to se…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw