MARY L. HANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SPENCER A. HOLMES AND BARBARA J. HOLMES, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1978-11-08
No. 78-1059
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
364 So. 2d 81 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1978) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 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.


Holding

The court held that the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff's claim was the one in effect prior to the amendment of the probate code, as the new statute could not be applied retrospectively to shorten the time for bringing the action.


Headnotes

[1] A statute will not be given retrospective application unless the intent to do so is clear.

[2] Where there is reasonable doubt concerning legislative intention to provide for a shortened limitation period, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the plaintiff.

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

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued to foreclose an equitable lien for services rendered by the decedent, alleging an oral agreement for reimbursement. The decedent died b…

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
RYDER, Judge.

RYDER, Judge.

Mary L. Haney, plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the grounds for which were that appellant’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. We hold appellant’s claim was not so barred, and we reverse.

On September 3, 1976, appellant filed her complaint for foreclosure of an equitable lien on certain real property owned by appellees. The complaint alleged that Ludie A. Haney, deceased, of whose assets appellant was sole beneficiary, had performed certain land clearing and maintenance work on appellees’ property, the last work having been done on or about February 27, 1975, pursuant to an oral agreement that appel-lees would reimburse him for his expenses and pay him a reasonable amount for his labor. Ludie A. Haney died on March 11, 1975. An order of summary administration of his estate was entered on May 28, 1976, at which time appellant was awarded all of decedent Haney’s assets, including the instant claim against appellees.

In their answer to appellant’s complaint, appellees asserted that Section 95.11(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), was the applicable statute of limitations. Had it been applicable to appellant’s cause of action, Section 95.11(5)(b), which places a one year limitation on actions to enforce an equitable lien arising from the furnishing of labor, services or material for the improvement of real property, would have barred her claim. However, as appellees concede in their brief on appeal, upon Ludie A. Haney’s death, Section 95.11(5)(b) became inapplicable, and the applicable limitation period became that provided in the Florida Probate Code.

The probate code statute of limitations in effect at Ludie A. Haney’s death, Section 734.27, Florida Statutes (1975), provided:

If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof and the cause of action survives, the action may be commenced by his personal representative after such expiration and within twelve months from the granting of letters.

Section 734.27, Florida Statutes (1973), was subsequently renumbered and amended. The new law, Section 733.104(1), Florida Statutes (1975), effective January 1, 1976, provides:

If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement of the action and the cause of action survives, the action may be commenced by his personal representative after the expiration and within twelve months from the date of the decedent’s death.

We must now decide which of these two statutes is applicable to appellant’s claim.

Appellant maintains that Section 734.27, Florida Statutes (1973), is the applicable statute of limitations, while appellees contend that Section 733.104(1), Florida Statutes (1975), applies. We agree with appellant.

It is well settled that a statute will not be given retrospective application unless the intent to do so is clear. Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Brooks-Fisher Insulating Co., 140 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Neither Section 733.104, Florida Statutes (1975), nor any other section of the Florida Probate Code contains clear language evincing such an intent.1 Where there is reasonable doubt concerning legislative intention to provide for a shortened limitation period, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the plaintiff. Maltempo v. Cuthbert, 288 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

If we were to find Section 733.-104(1), Florida Statutes (1975), applicable here, we would be holding that appellant’s cause of action expired before her right to the claim was determined. We hold that this result should not be obtained.

Accordingly, since appellant’s suit was filed within the period provided in Section 734.27, Florida Statutes (1973), the order granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . We are not unaware of § 731.011, Fla.Stat. (1975), which provides:

The Florida Probate Code shall become effective on January 1, 1976. The substantive rights of all persons that have vested prior to January 1, 1976, shall be determined as provided in former chapters 731-737 and chapters 744 — 746 as they exist prior to January 1, 1976. The procedures for the enforcement of substantive rights that have vested before January 1, 1976, shall be as provided in this code.

However, we do not feel that this section, which does not make specific reference to § 733.104, unequivocally indicates a legislative intent to retroactively shorten and, in some cases, eviscerate, the probate code limitation period.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …Where a statute of limitations shortens the existing period of time the statute is generally construed strictly, and where there is reasonable doubt as to legislative intent, the preference is to allow the longer period of time. See Haney v. Holmes, 364 So. 2d 81 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 367 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1979). Applying these rules of construction leads us to conclude that the term “privity” as used in section 95.11(4)(b) means direct contractual privity. The term “privity” is a word of art…
  • Rebich v. Burdine's & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 417 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
    …234 (1944). Alternatively, it has been held that where there is a reasonable doubt concerning the legislature’s intention to provide for a shortened limitation period, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the plaintiff. See Haney v. Holmes, 364 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). As Dr. Fabric is the plaintiff in this dispute below, he should be given the benefit of the doubt as to the inapplicability of Section 440.19. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceed…
  • The Est. OF Encarnacion Luaces De Garcia v. Garcia, 399 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
    …ively unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance, Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978). Because the Florida Probate Code, effective 1976, does not contain clear language evidencing a contrary intent, Haney v. Holmes, 364 So. 2d 81 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 367 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1979), the principle prevails. Section 731.-011, Florida Statutes (1977), the Florida Probate Code, tells us that procedural [*489] rights under the Probate Code apply prospectively whereas v…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw