FRED ROEHNER, SOLL ROEHNER, MELVIN T. GOLDBERGER, DEAN MOSES AND EARL WORSHAM D/B/A REGENCY HIGHLAND ASSOCIATES, PETITIONERS,
v.
ATLANTIC COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss an equitable lien foreclosure action where the statute of limitations defense appeared on the face of the complaint.
A statute of limitations defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss when the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint.
[1] A statute of limitations defense may be asserted by motion to dismiss when the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent filed an action to foreclose an equitable lien and seek legal damages; petitioners moved to dismiss the equitable lien claim based on the s…
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 Foreclosure Of Equitable Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss an action to foreclose an equitable lien. Review in this case should have been initiated by interlocutory appeal rather than application for a writ of certiorari. However, we will treat the petition as an interlocutory appeal and proceed to the merits.
The respondent filed an action to foreclose an equitable lien and for legal damages. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the equitable lien action alleging that the complaint on its face showed that the lien action was barred by the statute of limitations. A defense based on the statute of limitations can be asserted in a motion to dismiss if the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint. Poulos v. Vordermeier, 327 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Here such facts do appear on the face of the complaint, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted as to the equitable lien with the action for damages remaining as a separate cause of action. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss the equitable lien action is hereby reversed with directions that an order be entered in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Johnson Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc., 389 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ute of limitations should be set out as an affirmative defense, although the defense may be asserted in a motion to dismiss if the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint. Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corporation, 353 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In this case, we do not believe appellant’s pleadings revealed on their face that her claim was barred. In our view the pleadings sufficiently alleged the existence of a valid note, an agreement to extend the due date on the not…
Authorities Cited
- Poulos v. Vordermeier, 327 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)