W. ED HERDER, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA F/K/A FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1998-03-25
No. 97-397
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., concur.
708 So. 2d 997 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., concur.

Dissent
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

The trial judge ruled that the statute of limitations on the present action on the appellant’s guarantee, which admittedly would otherwise have run, was tolled when, within the statutory period, the principal sum was reduced by the amount secured without the appellant’s knowledge from a judicial sale of the collateral on the underlying loan. The Florida law, however, is that partial payment tolls the limitations period only when it is made by the obligor himself and may thus be considered as a subsequent implied promise to pay the remaining balance. Jacksonville Am. Publ’g Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835, 197 So. 672 (1940); Wassil v. Gilmour, 465 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Kitchens v. Kitchens, 142 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Because I cannot agree with the appellee’s argument that any change in this rule has been effected by the enactment of section 95.051(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1975), see Wassil, 465 So. 2d at 568 n. 6, or anything else, I would therefore reverse for the entry of judgment in the appellant’s favor.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
    …tted). See also Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 734-35 (Fla.2002); Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla.1985); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State, 262 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla.1972); Alvarez v. E & A Produce, 708 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Consideration of potential affirmative defenses or speculation about the sufficiency of evidence which plaintiff will likely produce on the merits is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to deciding such a motion. Barbado v. Gre…
  • …appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Appellant’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Because “[c]ourts are not required to award plaintiffs endless bites of the same apple[,]” Alvarez v. E & A Produce Corp., 708 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we hold the trial court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm. See Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So. 3d 1229, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the third amended complaint with prejudice and ho…
  • …s.”). Reviewing the facts as they appear in the complaint, then, no viable claim of premises liability or negligence per se were alleged and therefore, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was warranted. See Alvarez v. E & A Produce Corp., 708 So. 2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Affirmed.…

Previewing 3 of 4 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